Poll: On second thought, maybe support for abortion isn’t increasing

posted at 9:31 am on January 23, 2013 by Allahpundit

Yesterday’s post kicked off a 400-comment thread so a follow-up with new data is obligatory. Remember how NBC/WSJ found 70 percent support for upholding Roe v. Wade, the highest number since they started polling that question? Gallup found something … different:

Not a wonderful result if you’re a pro-lifer — support for overturning Roe has only briefly come within even 20 points of support for keeping it — but still more encouraging than the NBC/WSJ numbers, which detected a basically steady upward trend in support for Roe since 1989. I’m not sure how to explain the discrepancy. I think Life News was on to something yesterday in flagging the precise wording of the question. The NBC poll defined Roe as creating a right to abortion in the first three months of pregnancy. Turns out a lot of people support that: Even in today’s more equivocal Gallup poll, 61 percent say abortion should be legal in the first trimester. Once you move to the second trimester, that number deflates to 27 percent; in the third trimester, it’s just 14 percent. Could be that because Gallup didn’t specify “three months” in its phrasing of the Roe question, more respondents focused on the entire term of pregnancy and that dropped the numbers. Or there could be some quirk in the methodology, specifically having to do with the number who answer “don’t know” about Roe. In the NBC poll, just six percent answered “not sure” when asked if the decision should be overturned; in Gallup, by contrast, “no opinion” draws 18 percent, which is more than 10 points higher than that figure used to be circa 2002-03. How come? Gallup has a theory:

Gallup trends indicate that the increase in public uncertainty about overturning Roe v. Wade is largely the result of a growing percentage of young adults aged 18 to 29 expressing no opinion. This suggests that the generation born entirely after Roe became law has had less exposure to information about the decision than those who lived through the original decision, or were at least old enough to witness some of the major abortion debates during the 1980s and ’90s, such as those involving President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987 and reaction to the high court’s Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey decision in 1992.

Good news and bad news there, obviously. Younger voters who express no opinion are potentially persuadable by pro-lifers, so in theory the anti-Roe numbers could expand in time. (Democratic overreach will help: Gallup notes that support for making abortion legal in all cases dropped after partial-birth abortion became a hot topic in the mid-90s.) Problem is, young adults are famously more liberal than other age groups on a variety of issues. That doesn’t mean they can’t make an exception for abortion — the issue is in many ways sui generis — but you’re swimming against the ideological tide in trying to convince them. In fact, if you follow the link to Gallup above, you’ll find that on the broader question of whether abortion should be legal (without mentioning Roe), the sharpest gain since Obama took office four years ago has been among the “legal under any circumstances” group. They used to be even with the “illegal under any circumstances” contingent. Now they lead by 10 points. There are, for the moment, more self-described “pro-choicers” than “pro-lifers” too, although I think that’s due mainly to the backlash against Akin and Mourdock. As recently as a year ago, pro-lifers led pro-choicers by nine points. It flipped during the election because of Akingate and the endless “war on women” messaging, I assume.

Long story short, looks like there’s plenty of room to marshal public support for greater restrictions on second- and third-term abortions but an absolute ban on the practice would be a very heavy lift.


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

OH!

KOOLAID2 on January 23, 2013 at 9:33 AM

…you were talking NBC yesterday…makes a difference!

KOOLAID2 on January 23, 2013 at 9:34 AM

We, the pollsters, were Polling people who were wondering
what we were polling..so we decided to Poll people here
at the Newsroom, and voila, we got our “Scientific” poll.

…any questions??

ToddPA on January 23, 2013 at 9:35 AM

…I still think they want to kill babies…up to the age of 1 or 2!

KOOLAID2 on January 23, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Regardless of how much or little people support it, the bottom lines is a baby dies and it’s usually a minority baby. Only racists support abortion, but of course the democrat party did create the KKK and Eugenics.

Flange on January 23, 2013 at 9:37 AM

the bottom lines is a baby dies and it’s usually a minority baby.

Yep. And that is something the prolife movement needs to start emphasizing. They also ought to make sure that Kermit Gosnell is a household name.

Mr. D on January 23, 2013 at 9:42 AM

As soon as it is born, the child shows in a scientifically demonstrable way that it recognizes its mother’s voice and distinguishes it from that of a stranger. Where has he learned that voice other than in the maternal womb?

There are also direct proofs. For example, we register how the movements and cardiac frequency of the fetus vary if we transmit unexpected sounds through the uterine wall. And we see that at first the fetus is startled, then it gets used to it, just like we do when we hear something that does not interest us.


- Dr. Carlo Bellini

kingsjester on January 23, 2013 at 9:46 AM

The best way to turn around a bad thing is to let it happen on a moderate scale for a while. NY might be that testing ground for the under-any-circumstances crowd, to see how their demand works in reality.

The worst thing to happen to liberalism is let it run unfettered somewhere on a visible scale. We know the result in places like Detroit and Chicago, but we’re political junkies. If the matter of wholesale abortion is going to change minds in the vast middle ground, let the effects of unbridled liberalism be seen where they can’t be hidden quite so easily.

Liam on January 23, 2013 at 9:47 AM

So where is our favorite unethical trolls?

itsspideyman on January 23, 2013 at 9:56 AM

BTW, our humanity does not come to us even at birth. What we are is the subtotal of our life experiences; our goals, our successes, our loses, our joys and pains. As we get older, we accumulate more of what makes us human. A fetus, of course, has none of those. It is just only the beginning phase of what will become a human being at far later date.

keep the change on February 1, 2011 at 10:02 PM

Still makes my skin crawl to this day.

Bishop on January 23, 2013 at 9:57 AM

The best argument against abortion is to make the welfare queens bear its full cost. If pro-choice argument holds, then abortion is a choice surgery, just like breast augmentation, and should be paid out of pocket. Note: I’d vote to make breast augmentation mandatory but hey, it’s just me. This line of arguing allows for exceptional medical circumstances (in a sense, akin to reconstructive breast surgery after cancer), and takes the religious aspect out of the equation, which will fly very well with younger professional crowd.

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 9:57 AM

gallup was pretty darn accurate about the 2012 election as well iirc /sarc

less abortions mean more minority kids, means more minority voters, which means more ppl on welfare and democrat voters…yet conservatives still want to restrict abortion, they truly are the party of stupid

nonpartisan on January 23, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Even in today’s more equivocal Gallup poll, 61 percent say abortion should be legal in the first trimester. Once you move to the second trimester, that number deflates to 27 percent; in the third trimester, it’s just 14 percent.

I’d be curious to see the polling on abortion in the fourth trimester. We have a president who would probably support that.

steebo77 on January 23, 2013 at 9:59 AM

Regardless of how much or little people support it, the bottom lines is a baby dies and it’s usually a minority baby. Only racists support abortion, but of course the democrat party did create the KKK and Eugenics.

Flange on January 23, 2013 at 9:37 AM

One dead minority baby for you, one less future Democrat voter for me.

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 9:59 AM

nonpartisan on January 23, 2013 at 9:58 AM

You are sick in the head.

For most conservatives, not everything is about politics.

22044 on January 23, 2013 at 10:00 AM

stupid

nonpartisan on January 23, 2013 at 9:58 AM

…you have shitferbrains!…your body is a septic field…AND you’re overflowing!

KOOLAID2 on January 23, 2013 at 10:01 AM

less abortions mean more minority kids, means more minority voters, which means more ppl on welfare and democrat voters…yet conservatives still want to restrict abortion, they truly are the party of stupid

nonpartisan on January 23, 2013 at 9:58 AM

The blind acorn nut found a squirrel, or something.

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 10:01 AM

They didn’t report Gallup this time.

The stat that says the jobs aren’t being done is that 48% of women who get abortions, get them again.

That is a failure.

The stat yesterday about one quarter of all babies were aborted since Roe…just brought me to tears. That don’t happen much.

Even if abortions are legal we have a social failure that is just off the charts. No poll or story can quantify that.

tomas on January 23, 2013 at 10:03 AM

For most conservatives, not everything is about politics.

22044 on January 23, 2013 at 10:00 AM

yes, I get that…that’s why conservatives will continue to lose and become more irrelevant. politics is the name of the game, and if you don’t play, then you have no say.

nonpartisan on January 23, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Long story short, looks like there’s plenty of room to marshal public support for greater restrictions on second- and third-term abortions but an absolute ban on the practice would be a very heavy lift.

Which is why this should be a states’ rights issue. Not that the greedy selfish women most passionate about this would stand for anything short of the current state-sanctioned murder on demand. These whores should be more tolerant and understanding of those who are equally passionate that a child should not be killed at the convenience of the vessel. Let the states decide if they want to be pro-life or pro-murder.

Happy Nomad on January 23, 2013 at 10:04 AM

For most conservatives, not everything is about politics.

22044 on January 23, 2013 at 10:00 AM

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. – Plato.

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Liam on January 23, 2013 at 9:47 AM

Sounds good in theory but in Europe where it’s been tried, the demographics are irreversible and in 30 years the more fecund Northern African immigrant population (read Muslim) will render the experiment … um… a failure?

Cleombrotus on January 23, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Although abortion is an important issue, I’m tired of losing elections because of it.

Find a position that a reasonable moderate can live with, press hard on everything up to that, and turn the tables on the left for its ghoulish support of abortion on demand and its insistence that taxpayers pay for the inability of women to take care of their own business, which of course, leaves out women who are victims of rape and incest, uncommon as they are.

BuckeyeSam on January 23, 2013 at 10:07 AM

nonpartisan on January 23, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 10:05 AM

I’ll take missing the point for $2,000, Alex!

22044 on January 23, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Find a position that a reasonable moderate can live with

BuckeyeSam on January 23, 2013 at 10:07 AM

There is no such thing as a reasonable moderate. Rush Limbaugh has it right. There is no moderate hall of fame. Moderates are people who are willing to sacrifice principle for political expediency or “winning.” It is why the GOP includes “moderates” like Chris Christie. No thank you.

Abortion or any social issue should not hold sway over all other issues but to water it down enough on the basis of winning instead of culture of life is just wrong.

Happy Nomad on January 23, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Abortion or any social issue should not hold sway over all other issues but to water it down enough on the basis of winning instead of culture of life is just wrong.

Happy Nomad on January 23, 2013 at 10:14 AM

so just be happy with losing on principle?

nonpartisan on January 23, 2013 at 10:16 AM

nonpartisan on January 23, 2013 at 10:16 AM

Further proof that you don’t have any.

kingsjester on January 23, 2013 at 10:17 AM

gallup was pretty darn accurate about the 2012 election as well iirc /sarc

less abortions mean more minority kids, means more minority voters, which means more ppl on welfare and democrat voters…yet conservatives still want to restrict abortion, they truly are the party of stupid

nonpartisan on January 23, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Quite possibly the most idiotic posting ever logged into this
website. CONGRATULATIONS.

ToddPA on January 23, 2013 at 10:18 AM

You told me that you spend much of your time playing video games where you get your jollies by killing people. I have a video I would appreciate you viewing and giving me your opinion of. You see, I don’t have the heart to watch it. Please watch and let me know your thoughts. The video is here. As I said I have not watched it,so I cannot speak to what is in it other then to say the title of the vid indicates that it is an abortion procedure. Thanks.

Bmore on January 23, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Sounds good in theory but in Europe where it’s been tried, the demographics are irreversible and in 30 years the more fecund Northern African immigrant population (read Muslim) will render the experiment … um… a failure?

Cleombrotus on January 23, 2013 at 10:05 AM

True, there is a risk. My view is that America is different from Europe in history, politics, and size relative to the individual countries over there.

Some places like NY and CA are tending/have tended toward the unbridled power of almost-total liberal domination. I think that the failures of the ideology will be evident in short order, as an example of what not to do. As for the rest of the country, the liberal world vision might have to be imposed instead of letting things take their natural course.

Time will tell.

Liam on January 23, 2013 at 10:19 AM

nonpartisan on January 23, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Sorry, forgot to quote you in the above message. ^^^^^^^

Bmore on January 23, 2013 at 10:19 AM

Bmore on January 23, 2013 at 10:18 AM

no thanks. there are alot of medical procedures that I wouldn’t want to watch.

again, our country is in fiscal ruins. You really understand the FINANCIAL implications of less abortions?

That means more welfare babies who will become welfare bums in the future, who are also likely to be more democrat voters…you think thats good for the USA?

nonpartisan on January 23, 2013 at 10:22 AM

P.S. I am not recommending anyone but nonpartisan view the video.

Bmore on January 23, 2013 at 10:22 AM

P.S. I am not recommending anyone but nonpartisan view the video.

Bmore on January 23, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Do you still keep a list of trolls? He should be added to it.

22044 on January 23, 2013 at 10:25 AM

nonpartisan on January 23, 2013 at 10:22 AM

I didn’t think you had it in you to watch it. Yet you will blindly support the procedure with your vote. Your side of the isle accuses me and my side of rejecting science at every turn. Yet science commands that you have an understanding of a procedure you support while at the same time reject watching the scientific evidence of that which you support. Who is the hypocrite?

nonpartisan on January 23, 2013 at 10:22 AM

This comment is both callous and racist. I will not respond to it. Now be a good lad and run along. You have had your ass handed to you.

Bmore on January 23, 2013 at 10:28 AM

22044 on January 23, 2013 at 10:25 AM

Yes I do, yes he is.

Bmore on January 23, 2013 at 10:30 AM

nonpartisan on January 23, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Anyone else creeped-out by this? I think I’ll go lock the doors now.

Bishop on January 23, 2013 at 10:31 AM

I’ll take missing the point for $2,000, Alex!

22044 on January 23, 2013 at 10:08 AM

I’ll take losing elections for $16,000,000,000,000, Alex!

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Bishop on January 23, 2013 at 10:31 AM

He is just a boy.

Bmore on January 23, 2013 at 10:33 AM

This comment is both callous and racist. I will not respond to it. Now be a good lad and run along. You have had your ass handed to you.

Bmore on January 23, 2013 at 10:28 AM

the comment is true. you will not respond to it because you can’t.

Pro-lifers and extreme environmentalists are no different. You want to end abortion so your conscience feels good, with no regard to the actual implications of more unwanted babies (likely to suck more welfare, entitlements and tax money). Just like an environmentalist will go for environmental policies that may similarly harm the nation but they feel morally superior about it.

nonpartisan on January 23, 2013 at 10:33 AM

nonpartisan on January 23, 2013 at 10:33 AM

You are now digging with a shovel in each hand young man. You know nothing of the philosophy that my core belief system is based on. You could not be more wrong. Your comment is not true, simply callous and racist. Now be a good lad and run along, you have embarrassed yourself enough.

Bmore on January 23, 2013 at 10:36 AM

nonpartisan, take these two words with you and study them. Perception/Reality.

Bmore on January 23, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Funny little man, aren’t you? You should hang out with HAL. He’s funny too.

22044 on January 23, 2013 at 10:40 AM

nonpartisan on January 23, 2013 at 10:33 AM

I would argue that it’s the availability of abortion that is at root of the irresponsibility we see in this country. Abortion is the ultimate in consequence free living. If these “welfare queens”, and everyone else, were made to deal with the NATURAL consequence of their actions, then more people(not all, but more) would behave more responsible. The percentage of babies being born out of wedlock continues to rise with easy access to abortion. Not to mention, a person who accepts that killing their own baby is OK can be convinced to do ANYTHING.

Flange on January 23, 2013 at 10:41 AM

My goodness, that nonpartisan idiot is one raging bigot, is he not?

He’s actually put off by the notion that we care more about minority children than beating his moronic ilk at the ballot box.

If that doesn’t tell you what racist, soulless ghouls liberals are at their very core, I don’t know what will.

To them, black children are nothing more than cannon fodder in their war against us.

CurtZHP on January 23, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Funny little man, aren’t you? You should hang out with HAL. He’s funny too.

22044 on January 23, 2013 at 10:40 AM

Little, huh? Clean your teeth before taking measure.

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Little, huh? Clean your teeth before taking measure.

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Innocent babies get murdered and you want to throw down? Pathetic.

22044 on January 23, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 10:44 AM

At this point, silence is your friend.
You complain about losing elections. Guess what, when you pi$$ off pro-life conservatives, your tent gets smaller. Learn that truth please.

22044 on January 23, 2013 at 10:52 AM

You want to end abortion so your conscience feels good, with no regard to the actual implications of more unwanted babies (likely to suck more welfare, entitlements and tax money). Just like an environmentalist will go for environmental policies that may similarly harm the nation but they feel morally superior about it.

nonpartisan on January 23, 2013 at 10:33 AM

Actually no. I think fewer women would get themselves in this position if it was at least more thoroughly regulated and more difficult to get.
Do you really believe that there was the same percentage of abortions when it was illegal in some states? Of course there is no way to know for certain but do you really think women would have been so eager to allow themselves to get pregnant knowing the problems they faced getting rid of the pregnancy? Are you assuming they were that ignorant? Or is it possible that the percentage of unwanted pregnancies has risen because of the availability of abortion?

Deanna on January 23, 2013 at 10:57 AM

You can pretty much get any result you want from a ‘poll’, just based on how you word the question.

GarandFan on January 23, 2013 at 10:59 AM

Flange on January 23, 2013 at 10:41 AM

You beat me to it. But it is one factor that pro-abortionists like to ignore.

Deanna on January 23, 2013 at 10:59 AM

That means more welfare babies who will become welfare bums in the future, who are also likely to be more democrat voters…you think thats good for the USA?

nonpartisan on January 23, 2013 at 10:22 AM

To conclude such, one must make alot of assumptions. If we were to remain consistent with the percentages then the tax base created by dozens of millions would more than offset. It’s all still academic at this point and on this point though. What isn’t however is the premise of the life argument.

anuts on January 23, 2013 at 11:04 AM

You complain about losing elections. Guess what, when you pi$$ off pro-life conservatives, your tent gets smaller. Learn that truth please.

22044 on January 23, 2013 at 10:52 AM

Troglocons like you can go and fist themselves raw vote for Barry if that’s their idea of pro-life. You’re nothing but big government liberals with a Bible; you just want the big government to do what you want, not what Barry wants.

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 11:14 AM

The best way to turn around a bad thing is to let it happen on a moderate scale for a while.

Liam on January 23, 2013 at 9:47 AM

I’m going to disagree on abortion, Liam. The big problem is (as someone wrote yesterday at National Review) that the real tragedy isn’t visible. It’s the dog not barking. What actually will change people’s minds is someone they know or they themselves considering abortion – and a loving person coming alongside and showing them the better way. Because only in this way is the victim of an abortion even visible – bring them into this world and love them and the mother.

They also ought to make sure that Kermit Gosnell is a household name.

Mr. D on January 23, 2013 at 9:42 AM

This, too.

GWB on January 23, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 11:14 AM

You obviously have no clue what I support, and have never seen my comments at Hot Air on other posts to understand that.
I can’t have a discussion with a proud ignoramus. Take care.

22044 on January 23, 2013 at 11:19 AM

You’re nothing but big government liberals with a Bible; you just want the big government to do what you want, not what Barry wants.

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 11:14 AM

How is protecting a human life against murder a “big government” issue in the conservative sense? And, this doesn’t have to do with religion – the fetus is a human life by any rational scientific standard.

GWB on January 23, 2013 at 11:22 AM

P.S. I am not recommending anyone but nonpartisan view the video.

Bmore on January 23, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Maybe Archivarix should watch it too. I’m sure he won’t.

22044 on January 23, 2013 at 11:22 AM

nonpartisan on January 23, 2013 at 10:33 AM
.

I would argue that it’s the availability of abortion that is at root of the irresponsibility we see in this country. Abortion is the ultimate in consequence free living. If these “welfare queens”, and everyone else, were made to deal with the NATURAL consequence of their actions, then more people(not all, but more) would behave more responsible. The percentage of babies being born out of wedlock continues to rise with easy access to abortion. Not to mention, a person who accepts that killing their own baby is OK can be convinced to do ANYTHING.

Flange
on January 23, 2013 at 10:41 AM

.
You beat me to it. But it is one factor that pro-abortionists like to ignore.

Deanna on January 23, 2013 at 10:59 AM

.
That’s well stated Flange, but I’m going to blame rejection of God for ALL of it.
Intolerance of having God being openly recognized in public began in the late ’60s. But it was the early ’70s when irresponsibility and open defiance of God just exploded.

Worth noting: the majority of abortions are performed on girls from middle class families, and not the poor.

listens2glenn on January 23, 2013 at 11:28 AM

The moral is that if y’all keep sending yer kids thru the centers of socialized indoctrination (aka, socialized schools), then you can kiss goodbye any hope that yer kids are ever gonna have the moral courage to undo the evil of Roe v. Wade.

TXJenny on January 23, 2013 at 11:31 AM

How is protecting a human life against murder a “big government” issue in the conservative sense? And, this doesn’t have to do with religion – the fetus is a human life by any rational scientific standard.

GWB on January 23, 2013 at 11:22 AM

First, the term “scientific standard” does not mean what you think it does – namely, you’re expected to quote your source, and make sure they are peer-reviewed. As for ending a human life, I have absolutely no moral reservations against it, only legal ones; if I could instantly off 10 million liberals without being held accountable to the law, I’d do so in a NYC second.

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 11:31 AM

less abortions mean more minority kids, means more minority voters, which means more ppl on welfare and democrat voters…yet conservatives still want to restrict abortion, they truly are the party of stupid

nonpartisan

In other words, you’re a racist democrat. And not one person here is shocked at this revelation.

xblade on January 23, 2013 at 11:33 AM

yes, I get that…that’s why conservatives will continue to lose and become more irrelevant. politics is the name of the game, and if you don’t play, then you have no say.

nonpartisan on January 23, 2013 at 10:03 AM

No, if you’re murdered through abortion, you have no say.

dominigan on January 23, 2013 at 11:33 AM

You’re nothing but big government liberals with a Bible; you just want the big government to do what you want, not what Barry wants.

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 11:14 AM

.
DUDE, repeating from yesterday . . . . . . . . having the Legislature overturn ‘Roe vs Wade’ is not “Big Government”.

Having vice-police snooping around, hoping to catch someone fornicating would be, however NO ONE is proposing any such thing.

If you see outlawing ‘abortion-on-demand’ as an encroachment to freedom, then I defy your definition of freedom.

listens2glenn on January 23, 2013 at 11:36 AM

… politics is the name of the game, and if you don’t play, then you have no say.

nonpartisan on January 23, 2013 at 10:03 AM

.
No, if you’re murdered through abortion, you have no say.

dominigan
on January 23, 2013 at 11:33 AM

.
ZZIINNNNGGGG !

listens2glenn on January 23, 2013 at 11:38 AM

You’re nothing but big government liberals with a Bible; you just want the big government to do what you want, not what Barry wants.

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Nope. Conservatives just want our founding documents to be followed. The Declaration of Independence states that we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of Independence provides the vision behind the Constitution, the highest law in the land.

(And yes as a conservative, I’ll point out that the rights mentioned in those documents are largely based on our Judeo-Christian belief system.)

dominigan on January 23, 2013 at 11:41 AM

DUDE, repeating from yesterday . . . . . . . . having the Legislature overturn ‘Roe vs Wade’ is not “Big Government”.

Having vice-police snooping around, hoping to catch someone fornicating would be, however NO ONE is proposing any such thing.

If you see outlawing ‘abortion-on-demand’ as an encroachment to freedom, then I defy your definition of freedom.

listens2glenn on January 23, 2013 at 11:36 AM

I don’t mind overturning Roe v Wade – and in fact welcome it – because federal government must not encroach upon the right of states, neither through the court overreach nor by legislative fiat. What I definitely would mind, however, is a) any federal legislation explicitly banning abortion, and b) any legislation, federal or local, that forces me to pay for someone else’s abortion.

Has I made my position clear enough?

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 11:44 AM

When it comes to moral issues such as abortion only cowards and unprincipled people care about polls… Are you a coward?

mnjg on January 23, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Nope. Conservatives just want our founding documents to be followed. The Declaration of Independence states that we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of Independence provides the vision behind the Constitution, the highest law in the land.

dominigan on January 23, 2013 at 11:41 AM

I think the pivotal point of discussion here is whether, and at which point of development, the fetus can be considered “life”. For a faithful Christian, it is natural to believe that life begins at conception, but as a non-believer, I refuse to have someone’s moral values forced on me in form of legislation. To me, life begins with heartbeat, which can be reliably detected about 15th week; until then, it’s abortion on demand if both parents consent, and are willing to pay.

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Does a person with an artificial heart count as living or dead in your view?

Flange on January 23, 2013 at 11:55 AM

I think the pivotal point of discussion here is whether, and at which point of development, the fetus can be considered “life”. For a faithful Christian, it is natural to believe that life begins at conception, but as a non-believer, I refuse to have someone’s moral values forced on me in form of legislation. To me, life begins with heartbeat, which can be reliably detected about 15th week; until then, it’s abortion on demand if both parents consent, and are willing to pay.

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Thank you Archivarix. You ask the ultimate question, the one that it takes courage to ask: where does life begin?

itsspideyman on January 23, 2013 at 11:57 AM

To me life must begin at conception. Why else would you have to extinguish it if it didn’t?

Bmore on January 23, 2013 at 12:02 PM

First, the term “scientific standard” does not mean what you think it does – namely, you’re expected to quote your source, and make sure they are peer-reviewed.

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 11:31 AM

I think the pivotal point of discussion here is whether, and at which point of development, the fetus can be considered “life”.

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Well, you can define it that way if you like, but scientists disagree. Here’s the definition of a living organism as found in most biology textbooks:

•an organized structure, being made up of a cell or cells
•is distinct from other “structures”
•grows/matures
•reproduces (at the appropriate maturity stage)
•metabolizes energy to survive or sustain existence
•responds to stimuli

All those are true of a zygote at the moment of conception. (If you want to get technical, it isn’t proven until the first cell division when it goes from zygote to embryo.) If you want to debate *personhood* rather than life, you will get into all sorts of sticky areas that can only be answered by metaphysics instead of biology.

GWB on January 23, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Anyone that supports this genocide has blood on their hands. Even if you vote for a lame brained politician that favors this human killing field and somehow can sever yourself from your conscience, you have blood on your hands. If they do not care about the most innocent of life, do you think they possibly care about you, especially liberals….No responsibility, no accountability, kill the baby….and you wonder why this country has become what it has….obama is part of our punishment………

crosshugger on January 23, 2013 at 12:19 PM

Just more polling data to go along with the liberal socialist agendas. Feed constant lies and dumb everyone down……

crosshugger on January 23, 2013 at 12:20 PM

GWB on January 23, 2013 at 12:09 PM

I borrowed my wife’s biology textbook and did not find your definition there. Just to show how silly and incomplete your “textbook” definition is – according to it, a human dick is a living organism. Now, my wife and Contessa Brewer want to know if you have a medical or biology degree.

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 12:24 PM

Abortion or any social issue should not hold sway over all other issues but to water it down enough on the basis of winning instead of culture of life is just wrong.
Happy Nomad on January 23, 2013 at 10:14 AM
so just be happy with losing on principle?
nonpartisan on January 23, 2013 at 10:16 AM

How would you know? We never do.

Cleombrotus on January 23, 2013 at 12:25 PM

listens2glenn on January 23, 2013 at 11:36 AM

.
I don’t mind overturning Roe v Wade – and in fact welcome it – because federal government must not encroach upon the right of states, neither through the court overreach nor by legislative fiat. What I definitely would mind, however, is a) any federal legislation explicitly banning abortion, and b) any legislation, federal or local, that forces me to pay for someone else’s abortion.

Has I made my position clear enough?

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 11:44 AM

.
Uhhh … clearer.

But how has the Federal not already “banned” abortion with the fourteenth amendment?
.
Cross-posting from yesterdays abortion thread:

The argument here turns on whether the federal government would continue to have a role in the criminalization and prosecution of abortion after that point.

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 8:13 PM

.
Prosecution should remain right where it is today for murder.

Local, local, local. Depending on a given set of circumstances surrounding a particular murder, it could go to the state.

As far as I’m concerned, implied criminalization of abortion begins with the Declaration Of Independence, but the Fourteenth Amendment goes beyond “implied” to definitive.

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 8:46 PM

listens2glenn on January 23, 2013 at 12:41 PM

I think that the failures of the ideology will be evident in short order, as an example of what not to do. As for the rest of the country, the liberal world vision might have to be imposed instead of letting things take their natural course.
Time will tell.
Liam on January 23, 2013 at 10:19 AM

By now, I would think it’s pretty evident that we don’t really have much of a choice in the matter any longer.

Wouldn’t you agree?

Cleombrotus on January 23, 2013 at 12:48 PM

I think the pivotal point of discussion here is whether, and at which point of development, the fetus can be considered “life”. For a faithful Christian, it is natural to believe that life begins at conception, but as a non-believer, I refuse to have someone’s moral values forced on me in form of legislation. To me, life begins with heartbeat, which can be reliably detected about 15th week; until then, it’s abortion on demand if both parents consent, and are willing to pay.

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 11:49 AM

I love how you put life in quotes, as you can’t know what that word really means. If you don’t know the meaning of the word, go look it up at Dictionary.com. It’s pretty cut and dry. A fetus is alive. It’s also human (a DNA test can prove that). That isn’t a “Christian” thing… its a proven medical, scientific fact. A fetus is an early developmental stage of a human being. Other developmental stages are infant, toddler, child, teenager, adult and elderly. Those are all still referring to a living human being.

dominigan on January 23, 2013 at 1:05 PM

nonpartisan on January 23, 2013 at 10:33 AM

You’re making the racist and classist assumption that:

A) The vast majority of unwanted babies will be unproductive members of society
B) That the vast majority of abortions are by the poor and unproductive.

Wrong on both. Abortion is expensive. The entire reason libs want taxpayer funded abortion is because it’s too expensive for them to reach their goal of culling the poor population using it. Abortion is used primarily as birth control and primarily by people who can afford it. There’s actually incentive for those on welfare and other public assistance to NOT have an abortion because it increases the size of their checks . . .

Also, if these babies are “unwanted” they can be put up for adoption to people who do want them. They can become productive members of society, and help grow our economy. They can easily go on to invent things, cure diseases, etc. Even if they are kept, they are likely born to people who could have afforded the procedure. Plenty of our leaders and movers and shakers come from poor backgrounds as well.

Those points aside, to say we shouldn’t be saving the lives of babies because of the future they may or may not have, is sick, demented, and WRONG.

PastorJon on January 23, 2013 at 2:05 PM

I also want to point out that without massive immigration reform and an influx of people from more populated nations, which isn’t necessarily a good thing for the US culturally, etc., we are facing a population crisis over the next 30 years as the population fails to be replaced anywhere near as fast as it needs to be. The number of workers, business creators, etc. is falling fast.

PastorJon on January 23, 2013 at 2:09 PM

I also want to point out that without massive immigration reform and an influx of people from more populated nations, which isn’t necessarily a good thing for the US culturally, etc., we are facing a population crisis over the next 30 years as the population fails to be replaced anywhere near as fast as it needs to be. The number of workers, business creators, etc. is falling fast.

PastorJon on January 23, 2013 at 2:09 PM

.
In other words, it’s doing exactly what Maurice Strong and the WCPA bunch want it to.

listens2glenn on January 23, 2013 at 3:36 PM

In other words, it’s doing exactly what Maurice Strong and the WCPA bunch want it to.

listens2glenn on January 23, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Seriously? Methinks someone has been listening 2 glenn 2 much.

cam2 on January 23, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Just to show how silly and incomplete your “textbook” definition is – according to it, a human dick is a living organism.

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 12:24 PM

You’re a fool or an idiot to make that sort of argument. That is an organ, neither distinct nor able to reproduce itself. If your wife’s biology book lacks such a definition, then it’s either a higher level textbook that assumes that sort of definition of a living organism, or it’s horribly incomplete.

Since you insist, a slightly different list (though the main elements are the same):

Organization.
Homeostasis.
Adaptation.
Reproduction and heredity.
Growth and development.
Detection and response to stimuli (both internal and external).
Interactions.

Or here:

When we try to define ‘living’, we conventionally look for distinctive characteristics exhibited by living organisms. Growth, reproduction, ability to sense environment and mount a suitable response come to our mind immediately as unique features of living organisms. One can add a few more features like metabolism, ability to self-replicate, self-organise, interact and emergence to this list.

Or a little bit different reference:

A living organism grows and develops. A tree begins as a seed, animals and humans start as embryos, and insects begin life as larvae.

dominigan on January 23, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Unfortunately, I don’t think he wants to understand. Other comments reveal someone rather callous about human life.

GWB on January 23, 2013 at 5:23 PM

I think the pivotal point of discussion here is whether, and at which point of development, the fetus can be considered “life”. For a faithful Christian, it is natural to believe that life begins at conception, but as a non-believer, I refuse to have someone’s moral values forced on me in form of legislation. To me, life begins with heartbeat, which can be reliably detected about 15th week; until then, it’s abortion on demand if both parents consent, and are willing to pay.

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 11:49 AM

The Bible teaches “Thou shalt do no murder.” It does not really address when life beings. Science is quite clear that life begins at conception. You can arbitrarily claim the dividing line is a human heartbeat, but it’s rather foolish to claim the developing baby is not alive long before then. It’s a distinct organism with a distinct growth rate and development, and its own DNA.

If it’s not human, what is it? A tumor? A growth? A cancer? Those used to be popular answers when abortion was first legalized, but we’ve learned a lot about fetal development since 1973. Such claims are so obviously wrong that even the hard-core abortion apologists gave up making those claims long ago, and now hang their hat on arguing, that what is obviously alive is somehow not actually human.

What should be clear at this point is that the abortion advocates will find a rationalization for what they want to do, no matter how far they have to stretch. Gallup may ask poll questions about which trimester abortions should be allowed in, but it’s a moot point. Abortions are allowed in ALL trimesters. We can argue about where to draw the line, but abortion advocates refuse to accept that there can be a line.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 24, 2013 at 12:09 AM

In other words, it’s doing exactly what Maurice Strong and the WCPA bunch want it to.

listens2glenn on January 23, 2013 at 3:36 PM

.
Seriously? Methinks someone has been listening 2 glenn 2 much.

cam2 on January 23, 2013 at 4:05 PM

.
( s i g h ) . . . . . . . you arrived at that conclusion, HOW ?

listens2glenn on January 24, 2013 at 1:17 AM