Marist poll shows most Americans favor increasing abortion restrictions

posted at 8:01 am on January 22, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Today is the 41st anniversary of Roe v Wade, and we’ll have stories about the March for Life in Washington DC today that protests that Supreme Court decision every year. We’ll also have coverage of other aspects of the abortion issue, such as the status of public opinion on abortion. The Catholic service group Knights of Columbus regularly commissions polls through Marist (which also conducts media polls on national and state levels) on this topic each year at the same time. This year’s survey shows that an overwhelming number of Americans oppose unrestricted abortion on demand — and that attitudes haven’t changed much over the years, either (via Kathryn Jean Lopez at The Corner):

A new survey of Americans finds strong support for abortion restrictions – including among those who identify as “strongly pro-choice.” Eighty-four percent of Americans would limit abortion to, at most, the first three months of pregnancy, with 58 percent of strongly pro-choice Americans supporting such limits.

The Knights of Columbus/Marist Poll also found that almost three-quarters of Americans (74 percent) favor a ban on abortions after 20 weeks except to save the life of the mother, a majority of Americans (53 percent) believe life begins at conception, and more than 6 in 10 (62 percent) think abortion is morally wrong.

More than 8 in 10 Americans (84 percent) do not see the abortion debate as an all or nothing proposition, saying that laws can protect both the well-being of a woman and the life of the unborn.

Other key findings of the survey include:

•  80 percent support parental notification before a minor can obtain an abortion.
•  79 percent support a 24-hour waiting period prior to having an abortion.
•  76 percent oppose allowing abortions to be performed by non-doctors.
•  62 percent want to change laws to allow for some restrictions on abortion.
•  58 percent support showing a woman an ultrasound image of her baby at least a day before an abortion.
•  57 percent believe abortion does a woman more harm than good in the long run.
•  55 percent — including 6 in 10 Millennials (adults 18 to 32) — want continued debate on the abortion issue.

On a related note, the survey also found that more than 7 in 10 Americans (71 percent) also believe that freedom of religion should be protected above government laws.

The full data can be found in this slideshow presentation from Marist. This slide in particular shows that attitudes over the last five years look statistically stagnant:

marist-abortion

It shows something else, too, that the KofC missed. Marist/KofC highlights the responses that include restrictions, which shows that unrestricted abortion on demand is still an extreme position. However, even if we push #3 out of the subgroup highlighted, we get a solid majority supporting the mainstream conservative position (although not the Christian religious position) on abortion — only permissible in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. That gets 56%, compared to 44% for elective abortion at any time. That’s a bit of a buried lead in the poll results.

What is the option, then? Grazie Pozo Christie, a medical doctor with the Catholic Association, wrote movingly this week about her experience with adoption, and how it opened her eyes:

My passion came to me when I fell in love with my youngest daughter. My husband and I both have adopted siblings, and after having four biological children, we decided to adopt our fifth. We had so much to give, and we knew there were so many children in the world who lacked the most important thing of all: a mother and father to love them. Purely because of convenience and ease, we decided to adopt from China. A few months later I traveled there and met our daughter, Lourdes. She was abandoned on a dirty sidewalk at around three days old, and taken to an orphanage full of other little girls. I met her when she was 10 months old.

I knew when I went there what my new daughter’s likely history was: in a country where only one child is allowed per family, she was probably an unexpected second pregnancy, or perhaps a first, disappointing female child. In a culture where only a son will make himself responsible for the welfare of his aging parents, having just a daughter is a tragedy. The result of the conjunction of the law and the culture is a deeply unwanted, unvalued baby. And a dangerous baby, sometimes. Perhaps her mother and father were heroes, who had braved the population police to give birth to her, at home, avoiding a forced abortion and a back-breaking fine. All these things I knew, going there, but they were only abstractions to me, things I had read in a brochure or an article.

Then I fell in love. The downy softness of her hair against my cheek became thrilling to me, and the little white tooth that just broke through the gum was a priceless pearl in my eyes. Her giggles stopped my heart with joy, and her toddling steps charmed me. When she called me Mami for the first time I wept with happiness. This little bit of humanity, so deeply unwanted, discarded and worthless, I learned was infinitely beautiful, infinitely valuable. The process of learning this, the process of falling in love with my daughter, was the prettiest thing that has ever happened to me. Somehow, miraculously, she had come through unimaginable dangers and been given to me to cherish. Has anyone, ever, received such a priceless gift?

It soon occurred to me with tremendous force that every child is like that: infinitely valuable and beautiful, no matter how unwanted and inconvenient. From that heart-stopping realization to making those signs and trudging in the snow in Washington it was just a short step. I looked around our country and realized that our culture had erected a temple to self-realization and sexual liberation, and therefore abortion hasto be available, because unwanted children will continue to be conceived, no matter how many “free” contraceptives are provided. Nothing restricts personal liberty like a pregnancy and parenthood. As a doctor I can tell you that no scientist questions the fact that a zygote, embryo, fetus and infant are all human beings in different stages of development. Those who believe in unrestricted abortion license do not acknowledge the conflicting right of the little human being, who might be unwanted, but is just as valuable and beautiful as a wanted child.

That’s what is at stake. Fifty-five million children have been killed and discarded over the last 41 years. It’s time to bring that to an end.

Update: In case some are skeptical of the KofC connection, here’s the CNN poll results from May of last year:

In that poll, only 36% thought abortion should be legal in most or all circumstances.


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

Marist poll

…at first…I thought I read..”MARXIST”!

KOOLAID2 on January 22, 2014 at 8:07 AM

What difference, at this time, does it make! Time after time the various states have votes on little matters like same sex marriage, abortion, gun controls and other seemingly constitutional issues. Yet the folks in black robes or legislators bow to the wishes of lobbying groups and overturn the American people. This seems to happen more and more often so what difference does it make what the people want or what the Constitution says?

Pardonme on January 22, 2014 at 8:11 AM

Why do Conservatives care about what Marxists think about Abortion?/nonpartisan

hawkdriver on January 22, 2014 at 8:12 AM

KOOLAID2 on January 22, 2014 at 8:07 AM

awww

I will never be a trailblazer.

hawkdriver on January 22, 2014 at 8:14 AM

Read KJ’s take as well :)

cmsinaz on January 22, 2014 at 8:18 AM

The biggest takeaway from this is that conservatives have got to stop being afraid of bringing the subject of abortion up. Obviously they need to avoid stupid remarks a la Todd Akin or Richard Mourdock. But in most of the country, this is not the sure-loser issue that way too many conservatives and especially Republican moderates think it is.

Athanasius on January 22, 2014 at 8:19 AM

I can’t comprehend how a person who calls themselves a Christian can support abortion.

Johnnyreb on January 22, 2014 at 8:20 AM

Read KJ’s take as well :)

cmsinaz on January 22, 2014 at 8:18 AM

…for sure!

KOOLAID2 on January 22, 2014 at 8:22 AM

Johnnyreb on January 22, 2014 at 8:20 AM

Yeah, don’t get that either…

OmahaConservative on January 22, 2014 at 8:22 AM

Want to rhetorically slap a liberal upside the head? Tell them,”In the last 40 years, Republicans have killed 13 million black children through their policies. (give a nice long pause to let the indignation build) Oh, wait, that was Liberals and abortion.”

trubble on January 22, 2014 at 8:25 AM

I can’t will never comprehend how a person who calls themselves a Christian can support abortion.

Johnnyreb on January 22, 2014 at 8:20 AM

Amen, it is beyond my ken.

herm2416 on January 22, 2014 at 8:26 AM

Eighty-four percent of Americans would limit abortion to, at most, the first three months of pregnancy, with 58 percent of strongly pro-choice Americans supporting such limits.

The Knights of Columbus/Marist Poll also found that almost three-quarters of Americans (74 percent) favor a ban on abortions after 20 weeks except to save the life of the mother, a majority of Americans (53 percent) believe life begins at conception, and more than 6 in 10 (62 percent) think abortion is morally wrong.

But since the KoC paid for the poll, all the respondents must be stupid bitter clingers, so their bigoted, unenlightened opinions don’t count.

/Typical ruling class “reasoning”.

Seriously, as a working hypothesis, do you think it’s possible that Marist had a pretty fair idea what the KoCs’ opinion was, and the poll results were “tweaked” to get a result in keeping with same?

I stopped trusting opinion polls a long time ago. The sort of slanted questions and “push-polling” I was subjected to over the phone did that.

Especially when they kept hanging up on me when I refused to give them the answers they wanted.

clear ether

eon

eon on January 22, 2014 at 8:28 AM

The biggest takeaway from this is that conservatives have got to stop being afraid of bringing the subject of abortion up. Obviously they need to avoid stupid remarks a la Todd Akin or Richard Mourdock. But in most of the country, this is not the sure-loser issue that way too many conservatives and especially Republican moderates think it is.

Athanasius on January 22, 2014 at 8:19 AM

Oh yes. Stay away from the rape question and you have a definite winner. Come off and looking more reasoned than zealous and you can make this issue yours; the “pro-choice” side is inherently zealous, expose them for what they are.

thebrokenrattle on January 22, 2014 at 8:30 AM

We do it for the children…. NEXT

roflmmfao

donabernathy on January 22, 2014 at 8:33 AM

Unless we’re prepared to execute woman who have abortions, I don’t understand why it’s still a GOP issue. Placing so much support behind the issue is probably why we have Communists running the country now, imo.

Karmi on January 22, 2014 at 8:40 AM

As a doctor I can tell you that no scientist questions the fact that a zygote, embryo, fetus and infant are all human beings in different stages of development. Those who believe in unrestricted abortion license do not acknowledge the conflicting right of the little human being, who might be unwanted, but is just as valuable and beautiful as a wanted child.

Our government was instituted to secure our Creator-endowed, unalienable rights, including the right to LIFE itself.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Our government has become destructive of the Creator-endowed, unalienable Right to Life.

It is the Right of the People to alter our government to restore the founding principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and to secure the Creator-endowed, unalienable Right to Life.

ITguy on January 22, 2014 at 8:41 AM

Karmi on January 22, 2014 at 8:40 AM

You need to go thank you mothr that you have an opinion to give.

My take.

kingsjester on January 22, 2014 at 8:42 AM

The biggest takeaway from this is that conservatives have got to stop being afraid of bringing the subject of abortion up. Obviously they need to avoid stupid remarks a la Todd Akin or Richard Mourdock. But in most of the country, this is not the sure-loser issue that way too many conservatives and especially Republican moderates think it is.

Athanasius on January 22, 2014 at 8:19 AM

Yes. We need to lead with this issue.

kcewa on January 22, 2014 at 8:44 AM

Unless we’re prepared to execute woman who have abortions, I don’t understand why it’s still a GOP issue. Placing so much support behind the issue is probably why we have Communists running the country now, imo.

Karmi on January 22, 2014 at 8:40 AM

Yep. Your opinion. For what it’s worth. Thanks your mom for her’s to have you.

hawkdriver on January 22, 2014 at 8:44 AM

kingsjester on January 22, 2014 at 8:42 AM

Okay. That’s two.

hawkdriver on January 22, 2014 at 8:46 AM

Unless we’re prepared to execute woman who have abortions, I don’t understand why it’s still a GOP issue. Placing so much support behind the issue is probably why we have Communists running the country now, imo.

Karmi on January 22, 2014 at 8:40 AM

Unless we’re prepared to die for the Jews, I don’t understand why it is still a national issue.

- Good Germans in the 1930s.

Ceding each and every issue to the left is not a path to victory you stupid quisling. You are a cancer on society.

Happy Nomad on January 22, 2014 at 8:47 AM

hawkdriver on January 22, 2014 at 8:46 AM

LOL!

kingsjester on January 22, 2014 at 8:48 AM

If Liberals, on both sides of the aisle, (because you cannot claim Conservatism, if you want to kill babies) would only perform a self-assessment, and come to the realization that the life inside a human mother’s womb, is in fact, a HUMAN BEING, and not “a bunch of cells,”, “a parasitic life form”, or “an inconvenience”, then abortion would go the way of the rotary telephone.

kingsjester on January 22, 2014 at 8:49 AM

I think they still keep a Marist Brother in the basement of one of the dorms, to sign out the vacuum cleaner or something.

Just like union members overwhelmingly vote and donate to Democrat to line their own pockets and preserve their way of life, women who have had abortions overwhelmingly vote Democrat and donate to PP to keep from feeling like hypocrite and to convince themselves that they did nothing wrong.

The right believes abortion stops babies from being born. The left knows abortion is creating a lifelong Democrat voter. They are sick, indeed.

Fallon on January 22, 2014 at 8:54 AM

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..

Murphy9 on January 22, 2014 at 8:54 AM

If Liberals, on both sides of the aisle, (because you cannot claim Conservatism, if you want to kill babies) would only perform a self-assessment, and come to the realization that the life inside a human mother’s womb, is in fact, a HUMAN BEING, and not “a bunch of cells,”, “a parasitic life form”, or “an inconvenience”, then abortion would go the way of the rotary telephone.

kingsjester on January 22, 2014 at 8:49 AM

Unfortunately, I’m not so sure. Many liberals will acknowledge that it is a person but that the mother’s right to liberty trumps the baby’s right to life. It is an evil thought process, but it is one nonetheless. One has to have their head in the sand to not think it’s a human being, but just a clump of cells.

Donald Draper on January 22, 2014 at 8:55 AM

Oh yes. Stay away from the rape question and you have a definite winner. Come off and looking more reasoned than zealous and you can make this issue yours; the “pro-choice” side is inherently zealous, expose them for what they are.

thebrokenrattle on January 22, 2014 at 8:30 AM

You can’t stay away from the “rape question.” But the pro-life side has to use a reasoned response- not some kind of Todd Akin comment that is a combination of ignorance and fundamentalist dogma.

My suggestion is you throw the question back at them. Should a woman be allowed to have an abortion when the child is viable outside the womb? Is an abortion still acceptable in the 35th week, for example. When they start with something like “it depends” then you jump in and declare- so you really do think there should be limits put on abortion, we just agree where that line should be.

Happy Nomad on January 22, 2014 at 8:56 AM

don’t understand why it’s still a GOP issue.

Karmi on January 22, 2014 at 8:40 AM

Arrgh! Oh well, an opportunity to fix my post.

Just like union members overwhelmingly vote and donate to Democrats to line their own pockets and preserve their way of life, women who have had abortions overwhelmingly vote Democrat and donate to PP to keep from feeling like hypocrites and to convince themselves that they did nothing wrong.

The right believes abortion stops babies from being born. The left knows abortion is creating a lifelong Democrat voter. They are sick, indeed.

Fallon on January 22, 2014 at 8:54 AM

Fallon on January 22, 2014 at 8:56 AM

Happy Nomad on January 22, 2014 at 8:56 AM

Should read: We just don’t agree where that line should be.

Happy Nomad on January 22, 2014 at 8:58 AM

If any of these men are replaced by a judge chosen by Obama and Reid there will be no restrictions on Abortion. And our tax dollars will be used to pay for abortion.

We need a Senate that will not allow that to happen. Please vote accordingly.

Antonin Scalia Age: 77 yr 10 mo
Anthony Kennedy Age: 77 yr 5 mo
Clarence Thomas Age: 65 yr 6 mo
Samuel A. Alito, Jr. Age: 63 yr 9 mo
John G. Roberts Age: 58 yr 11 mo

kcewa on January 22, 2014 at 8:59 AM

Unless we’re prepared to execute woman who have abortions, I don’t understand why it’s still a GOP issue. Placing so much support behind the issue is probably why we have Communists running the country now, imo.

Karmi on January 22, 2014 at 8:40 AM

I don’t think you understand how this works…

thebrokenrattle on January 22, 2014 at 9:00 AM

My suggestion is you throw the question back at them. Should a woman be allowed to have an abortion when the child is viable outside the womb? Is an abortion still acceptable in the 35th week, for example. When they start with something like “it depends” then you jump in and declare- so you really do think there should be limits put on abortion, we just agree where that line should be.

Happy Nomad on January 22, 2014 at 8:56 AM

They dodge and avoid and you win the argument because they really don’t like talking about abortion when the baby is in the fetal stage. It’s easier to deny humanity to a 9 week old kid because, it IS pretty weird looking( even then, you gotta ask them if it has it’s own heartbeat, it’s own DNA, etc) but when you get into the second trimester, it’s a friggin’ baby and everyone knows it. Watching them trying to deny that is sadly funny.

thebrokenrattle on January 22, 2014 at 9:07 AM

Bwahahahahahahaha….

and down in the Texas governor’s race…….Abortion Barbie wants to talk LIFE struggles.. ya can’t make this chit up.

roflmmfao

donabernathy on January 22, 2014 at 9:14 AM

Karmi on January 22, 2014 at 8:40 AM

Thank all those Mother Manatees that didn’t abort just so you could butcher them Karmi.

Bmore on January 22, 2014 at 9:16 AM

…at first…I thought I read..”MARXIST”!

KOOLAID2 on January 22, 2014 at 8:07 AM

You ain’t the only one!

Lanceman on January 22, 2014 at 9:17 AM

55 million and counting, 55 MILLION, but you know, condoms are awfully difficult to put on and that pill, I mean really, taking a pill once a day?

Bishop on January 22, 2014 at 9:18 AM

The problem with the “rape, incest, or life of the mother” exception is that there are no conceivable means of accessing the validity of a rape claim, nor would it be easy to come up with clear cut definition of what would constitute something that is necessary for the life of the mother. (An analogous situation can be found with medical marijuana in California, where self-diagnosed “anxiety” is an accepted excuse for obtaining some.) Without strictly defined standards for the “life of the mother” exception, the loophole would be exploited as it would allow normal pregnancy risks to be cited as the justification for abortions.

blammm on January 22, 2014 at 9:21 AM

If we could figure out who might grow up to be an Army pilot then they could be aborted, I’d support that.

And Wisconsitonians, abort the entire state as far as I’m concerned, the place is the root of all evil in the world.

Bishop on January 22, 2014 at 9:25 AM

My suggestion is you throw the question back at them. Should a woman be allowed to have an abortion when the child is viable outside the womb? Is an abortion still acceptable in the 35th week, for example. When they start with something like “it depends” then you jump in and declare- so you really do think there should be limits put on abortion, we just agree where that line should be.

Happy Nomad on January 22, 2014 at 8:56 AM

Also, personhood should not be defined in reference to modern medical advancement. Viability has come earlier and earlier due to technological advances post-Roe. Should the 30 week baby of 1975 have fewer rights than the 30 week baby of today? Should the 30 week baby of 2040 have more rights than the 30 week baby of today?

blammm on January 22, 2014 at 9:27 AM

The GOP wants to stand for individual rights, except on certain issues that they want to force on everyone…sorta a ‘Group Right‘ thing that gets backed by Government Force. Individual Rights:

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

Pushing this abortion issue is akin to beating a dead horse in order to make it run faster. The GOP loses a lot of voters because of this hypocrisy, or whatever.

Meanwhile, we have Communists (mentored by the likes of Frank Davis & Rev. Wright) being elected twice…and Hillary is On Deck (she of the It Takes a Village mentality). The GOP offered McCain in ’08 then Romney in ’12, and they are now pushing a Democrat in GOP clothing for ’16 (Christie!?!?!?!?!).

Again, Unless we’re prepared to execute woman who have abortions, I don’t understand why it’s still a GOP issue.

Karmi on January 22, 2014 at 9:31 AM

Karmi on January 22, 2014 at 9:31 AM

“Let them die…and descrease the surplus population.” – ebeneezer Scrooge…and Karmi

“Because, after all, a vote is more important than a baby I don’t know.”

Sheesh.

kingsjester on January 22, 2014 at 9:39 AM

The GOP wants to stand for individual rights, except on certain issues that they want to force on everyone

There’s that whole babies rights thing too, or don’t they count?

Bishop on January 22, 2014 at 9:46 AM

kingsjester on January 22, 2014 at 9:39 AM

What can you expect from a non Conservative poacher like Karmi? Answer, not much. He is fine with immoral lawbreaking, so long as it suits him.

Bmore on January 22, 2014 at 9:55 AM

Karmi on January 22, 2014 at 9:31 AM

Akin to reading FloatingRizzock argue about MJ.

Murphy9 on January 22, 2014 at 10:06 AM

Again, Unless we’re prepared to execute woman who have abortions, I don’t understand why it’s still a GOP issue.

Karmi on January 22, 2014 at 9:31 AM

Wow, doubling down on stupid. The extreme position you claim the GOP is staking out does not even make sense.

Nevertheless the issue of protecting the unborn does matter for moral reasons if nothing else. Those of you willing to abandon the fight might as well be Democrats. Social issues matter no matter what pea-brained people like you say.

Happy Nomad on January 22, 2014 at 10:11 AM

To paraphrase the gun grabbers… “Eighty-four percent of Americans favor restrictions on abortion – why are you objecting to common sense abortion laws?”

Hill60 on January 22, 2014 at 10:14 AM

There’s that whole babies rights thing too, or don’t they count?

Bishop on January 22, 2014 at 9:46 AM

Depends. A woman is on the way to her local Planned Parenthood abortion factory to get a “procedure” after the 20th week. She’s involved in a fatal accident, the other (guilty) driver can be charged with double mansluaghter. But, if she arrives at her destination safely, then manslaughter isn’t involved at all.

This is the world that is created when unfeeling morons like Karmi are involved in the legislative process.

Happy Nomad on January 22, 2014 at 10:16 AM

There’s that whole babies rights thing too, or don’t they count?
Bishop on January 22, 2014 at 9:46 AM

Well, for decades now, they don’t count until they are actually born. Then the parents usually turn them over to the Government. Meanwhile, the issue gets used by the Democrats on many levels, including as a distraction to push other issues forward. Now, it looks like Hillary & Christie in 2016…both a gain for abortionists and communists.

Karmi on January 22, 2014 at 10:16 AM

Wow, doubling down on stupid.

Happy Nomad on January 22, 2014 at 10:11 AM

Understatement of the thread.

Bmore on January 22, 2014 at 10:19 AM

Karmi on January 22, 2014 at 10:16 AM

I’m asking you, do the babies count?

Bishop on January 22, 2014 at 10:21 AM

Karmi on January 22, 2014 at 10:16 AM

Well, for decades now, they don’t count until they are actually born.

At least, not to you.

kingsjester on January 22, 2014 at 10:23 AM

I’m asking you, do the babies count?

Bishop on January 22, 2014 at 10:21 AM

While you’re busy asking questions, do you know that you help to fund abortions?

Karmi on January 22, 2014 at 10:28 AM

They all still beat their wives.

Murphy9 on January 22, 2014 at 10:30 AM

Does your mother know you are stupid?

Murphy9 on January 22, 2014 at 10:30 AM

I’m asking you, do the babies count?

Bishop on January 22, 2014 at 10:21 AM

I’ll save you the trouble:

“BUT SOCONS!!!@@()I(@*&T*&”

nobar on January 22, 2014 at 10:31 AM

But Thuja was just telling me yesterday that a fetus is not necessarily a human being. It could be a child, or a head of cabage, or even a cocker spaniel. Apparently we don’t know until the mother gives birth. Sort of like those quarter machines that dispense the little toys. It’s all a big mystery until it rolls out and you get to see it. I highly doubt the good doctor would have been as overjoyed taking care of an ingrdient in soup.

/

JAGonzo on January 22, 2014 at 10:31 AM

A tiny clump of undifferentiated cells is a tiny clump of undifferentiated cells. It is not a human being. Most people don’t want to give political power to people who cannot recognize such an obvious difference.

I recognize it is better to give political power to someone with that particular misperception of reality than to give it to someone who doesn’t recognize the critical importance of having property rights and free market pricing, but my view is rational. People are mostly not.

So the religious right keeps dragging us down, and the aborting of millions of actual unborn babies continues.

fadetogray on January 22, 2014 at 10:33 AM

So the religious right keeps dragging us down, and the aborting of millions of actual unborn babies continues.

fadetogray on January 22, 2014 at 10:33 AM

So, tell me Dr. Mengele, at what point in the womb does a human being, conceived by 2 human beings, become a human being?

kingsjester on January 22, 2014 at 10:35 AM

So, tell me Dr. Mengele, at what point in the womb does a human being, conceived by 2 human beings, become a human being?

kingsjester on January 22, 2014 at 10:35 AM

“Dr. Mengele?”

You just proved my point beyond even the faintest doubt.

fadetogray on January 22, 2014 at 10:37 AM

So the religious right keeps dragging us down, and the aborting of millions of actual unborn babies continues.

fadetogray on January 22, 2014 at 10:33 AM

LOL, this is the reprobate’s riposte?

Moloch doesn’t love you.

Murphy9 on January 22, 2014 at 10:38 AM

fadetogray on January 22, 2014 at 10:37 AM

Are you oblivious to how cruel, unfeeling, and uncaring you sound? Would you have preferred that I would have called you “Dr. Gosnell”, instead?

kingsjester on January 22, 2014 at 10:38 AM

It must be demoniac Wednesday at HA.

Murphy9 on January 22, 2014 at 10:39 AM

So the religious right keeps dragging us down, and the aborting of millions of actual unborn babies continues.

fadetogray on January 22, 2014 at 10:33 AM

2 minutes in and I called it.

Can anyone top that?

nobar on January 22, 2014 at 10:39 AM

fadetogray on January 22, 2014 at 10:33 AM

I would ask for any evidence on your part of the last time a woman who had that tiny clump of undifferentiated cells in her womb gave birth to anything other than a human being. In the mean time, a life is a life no matter how early we begin observing it.

JAGonzo on January 22, 2014 at 10:44 AM

Wendy Davis forced to walk in her own pissy shoes.

Schadenfreude on January 22, 2014 at 11:00 AM

A tiny clump of undifferentiated cells is a tiny clump of undifferentiated cells. It is not a human being. Most people don’t want to give political power to people who cannot recognize such an obvious difference.

fadetogray on January 22, 2014 at 10:33 AM

OK, so at what point does it cease to be a “tiny clump of undifferentiated cells” and become a human being? Let’s try this, from Biology Reference:

Gastrulation. During the third week, the embryo undergoes the process of gastrulation, forming a trilaminar (three-layered) disc. Gastrulation establishes the three germ layers—the endoderm, ectoderm, and centrally placed mesoderm—all of which will give rise to the various organ systems. Mesoderm also combines with trophoblast tissue to form the umbilical cord, which transports nutrients and wastes between the fetal circulation and the placenta.

Embryogenesis. At this point, the developing human enters the actual embryonic phase, which lasts from the third week through the eighth week after conception. The organ systems differentiate at greatly varying rates during this phase. For example, the circulatory system is largely functional at the end of this period, whereas the nervous system is still engaged in massive cell division and only beginning to establish functional connections. Most embryological malformations occur during this embryonic phase.

In other words, surgical abortion is for all intents and purposes non-existent at the time cell differentiation occurs (virtually no women even know they are pregnant when gastrulation takes place). It still leaves the question of abortifacient drugs like the morning-after pill, but given your reference to “aborting of millions of actual unborn babies,” I assume that you think that surgical abortion should be outlawed. So why the snide references to the “religious right,” which apparently has the same goal you do?

Athanasius on January 22, 2014 at 11:01 AM

A simple question for all you pro abortion types. If its not a life why do you have to kill it?

Bmore on January 22, 2014 at 11:09 AM

A tiny clump of undifferentiated cells is a tiny clump of undifferentiated cells. It is not a human being.

fadetogray on January 22, 2014 at 10:33 AM

I’m going to guess, you’ve never given birth.

Fallon on January 22, 2014 at 11:10 AM

A tiny clump of undifferentiated cells is a tiny clump of undifferentiated cells. It is not a human being.

fadetogray on January 22, 2014 at 10:33 AM

That clump of cells has human DNA, distinct from its mother’s DNA and its father’s DNA. It is a distinct human being, needing only time to develop to the point where you would agree that it is human.

That distinct DNA, and the growth and multiplication of those cells, began at conception.

Conception is a very clear and distinct event, a very clear delineation between two non-multiplying gametes and one multiplying and dividing human zygote which will, barring abortion or miscarriage, be born approximately 40 weeks later.

If you do not believe that human life begins at conception, then please define when you think life does begin. At what point is there anything close to a point of change as marked as that point of change at conception?

ITguy on January 22, 2014 at 11:11 AM

It still leaves the question of abortifacient drugs like the morning-after pill, but given your reference to “aborting of millions of actual unborn babies,” I assume that you think that surgical abortion should be outlawed. So why the snide references to the “religious right,” which apparently has the same goal you do?

Athanasius on January 22, 2014 at 11:01 AM

Yes, it does leave the question of abortifacient drugs. Note that you are the only one responding to my comment who addresses what I was actually talking about even though “undifferentiated clump of cells” is pretty clear.

Which is the reason for my negative references to the religious right. They would rather keep allowing the reelection of actual baby killers than support “unfeeling, reprobate, demoniac, Gosnell/Mengele/Moloch follower” types like me.

Oh, well. So it goes.

fadetogray on January 22, 2014 at 11:14 AM

A tiny clump of undifferentiated cells is a tiny clump of undifferentiated cells. It is not a human being.

fadetogray on January 22, 2014 at 10:33 AM

I’m going to guess, you’ve never given birth.

Fallon on January 22, 2014 at 11:10 AM

I was taught that straight from the feminist handbook (and repeated in magazines like Cosmo) in the 70′s and I used to believe it to an extent. Now, I file it under:

“The worst lies are the lies we tell ourselves.”

Fallon on January 22, 2014 at 11:19 AM

ITguy on January 22, 2014 at 11:11 AM

I understand you want simple. You want a clear line. That is not the way reality works. Looked at closely enough, everything blurs.

I do not know when an undifferentiated clump of cells becomes a human being. I am opposed to the idea a fetus is not a human being, although I understand the argument.

Wherever the line should be, an undifferentiated clump of cells is not the same thing as a human being.

fadetogray on January 22, 2014 at 11:21 AM

To think that only someone with religion could be the only ones among us that are pro life is pure idiocy.

Bmore on January 22, 2014 at 11:21 AM

Wherever the line should be, an undifferentiated clump of cells is not the same thing as a human being.

fadetogray on January 22, 2014 at 11:21 AM

Good thing differentiation begins at conception.

Murphy9 on January 22, 2014 at 11:28 AM

If you do not believe that human life begins at conception, then please define when you think life does begin. At what point is there anything close to a point of change as marked as that point of change at conception?

ITguy on January 22, 2014 at 11:11 AM

I understand you want simple. You want a clear line. That is not the way reality works. Looked at closely enough, everything blurs.

I do not know when an undifferentiated clump of cells becomes a human being. I am opposed to the idea a fetus is not a human being, although I understand the argument.

Wherever the line should be, an undifferentiated clump of cells is not the same thing as a human being.

fadetogray on January 22, 2014 at 11:21 AM

You live in an undefinable gray area.

To my question, there are only two clear, unmistakable points of sudden change:

1) Conception, when the baby begins growing.

2) Birth, when the baby begins living disconnected from the mother’s body.

ITguy on January 22, 2014 at 11:41 AM

You don’t want restrictions. You want a ban.

Get restrictions, and then you use that to get a ban. You fool no one, and it’s never happening anyway. Meanwhile, it’s just more fuel for Democrat election campaigns.

You don’t want the government to be in charge of your health care, but you want the government to be in charge of pregnancy.

GREAT PLAN.

Moesart on January 22, 2014 at 11:43 AM

You don’t want the government to be in charge of your health care, but you want the government to be in charge of pregnancy.

Moesart on January 22, 2014 at 11:43 AM

A profoundly stupid comment.

Bmore on January 22, 2014 at 11:58 AM

Bmore on January 22, 2014 at 11:58 AM

Yeah, huh.

kingsjester on January 22, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Purely because of convenience and ease, we decided to adopt from China.

The Left has augmented its abortion agenda with a plethora of strangling regulations on the adoption system, making it so complicated and expensive to adopt an American baby that foreign adoptions are now the norm.

Their rationale is “protecting the child” but the result is a tangled mess of inconsistent and illogical mandates that effectively prevent many, many adoptions.

Even if the majority of workers in adoption agencies and legislatures and government bureaus honestly believe they are working on behalf of the children, the system still encourages abortion, because it is “easier” for the mother and no one at Planned Parenthood is pushing any alternatives.

AesopFan on January 22, 2014 at 12:11 PM

To think that only someone with religion could be the only ones among us that are pro life is pure idiocy.

Bmore on January 22, 2014 at 11:21 AM

Same can be said about the killing a 35 year old. It is wrong only if our religion/conscience/ethics inform us that it is wrong.

blammm on January 22, 2014 at 12:15 PM

kingsjester on January 22, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Lolz! ; )

blammm on January 22, 2014 at 12:15 PM

One thing I have often found amusing is that folks that profess no religion won’t acknowledge where they get their morals from. Thin air I guess. ; )

Bmore on January 22, 2014 at 12:27 PM

The Left has augmented its abortion agenda with a plethora of strangling regulations on the adoption system, making it so complicated and expensive to adopt an American baby that foreign adoptions are now the norm.

AesopFan on January 22, 2014 at 12:11 PM

It’s staggering how much money goes to Communist countries (China, Vietnam, Russia, etc.) just for the privilege of adopting a baby.

There are plenty of people in the U.S. who would like to adopt and would adopt a U.S. baby if the process were easier.

No pregnant woman should be forced to raise a child she doesn’t want to raise, but she should be willing to sacrifice her own convenience for a year to respect that child’s Creator-endowed unalienable right to Life and put that child up for adoption.

Those who think that abortion restrictions take rights away from the mother seem to copletely ignore the unalienable right to Life of the baby.

One’s unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness do not include a right to deny Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness to another human being.

ITguy on January 22, 2014 at 12:31 PM

You don’t want the government to be in charge of your health care, but you want the government to be in charge of pregnancy.

Moesart on January 22, 2014 at 11:43 AM

Advocating for a limited definition of what constitutes a legal abortion (at whatever term, for whatever reason) does not put “the government in charge of pregnancy” anymore than defining what constitutes an act of homicide (in varying degrees) puts the government “in charge” of murder.

The “government in charge of pregnancy” is the Planned Parenthood scheme, where tax dollars support organizations with a specific agenda (even if PP did actually advocate options other than abortion, it would still be privileged over private agencies).

The “government in charge of pregnancy” is the proliferation of regulations limiting the speech and activities of pro-life persons and organizations, with no analogous limits on the pro-choice side.

The “government in charge of pregnancy” is the coercive inclusion in school curricula of material favorable to abortion, promiscuity, and non-traditional sexuality, while forcibly preventing the presentation of alternatives.

The “government in charge of pregnancy” is the promulgation of speech codes and legislation designating certain opinions (but not the opposing ones) as “hate crimes” so that a person can be punished for their thoughts, even when their actions are not criminal.

The government should confine itself to defining what is legal and what is not, and leave all other considerations to the citizens, with due respect for the First Amendment, intervening only to prevent violence against persons or property.

AesopFan on January 22, 2014 at 12:41 PM

You don’t want restrictions [on abortion]. You want a ban.

Get restrictions, and then you use that to get a ban. You fool no one, and it’s never happening anyway. Meanwhile, it’s just more fuel for Democrat election campaigns.

You don’t want the government to be in charge of your health care, but you want the government to be in charge of pregnancy.

GREAT PLAN.

Moesart on January 22, 2014 at 11:43 AM

Or maybe,

You don’t want restrictions [on guns]. You want a ban.

Get restrictions, and then you use that to get a ban. You fool no one, and it’s never happening anyway. Meanwhile, it’s just more fuel for Democrat Republican election campaigns.

You don’t want the government to be in charge of your health care lifestyle, but you want the government to be in charge of pregnancy guns.

I have REALLY GREAT PLAN!

How about we don’t have the government in charge of anything except the few things mandated in the Constitution that it is supposed to be in charge of?

AesopFan on January 22, 2014 at 12:51 PM

You don’t want the government to be in charge of your health care, but you want the government to be in charge of pregnancy.

Moesart on January 22, 2014 at 11:43 AM

So the government recognizing that unborn life is human life, deserving of the same protection of its life as born life, and outlawing its wanton destruction, is putting the state “in charge of pregnancy”?

Thanks for demonstrating why liberals should not be in charge of anything.

Athanasius on January 22, 2014 at 12:51 PM

Which is the reason for my negative references to the religious right. They would rather keep allowing the reelection of actual baby killers than support “unfeeling, reprobate, demoniac, Gosnell/Mengele/Moloch follower” types like me.

Oh, well. So it goes.

fadetogray on January 22, 2014 at 11:14 AM

I am still confused about who you consider the “real baby killers” that the religious right supposedly wants to re-elect.

Athanasius on January 22, 2014 at 12:52 PM

One thing I have often found amusing is that folks that profess no religion won’t acknowledge where they get their morals from. Thin air I guess. ; )

Bmore on January 22, 2014 at 12:27 PM

Sure they will. They get their morality from their culture. They understand it through their own feelings, like guilt.

What’s more, they believe that is what people who profess to get their morality from religion are really doing, too, and that is why religious people often behave so hypocritically.

They are not completely wrong. Most humans, including ones who profess to be religious, function a great deal like animals with regard to morality. “How does it make me feel?” “What can I get away with doing?” “Will they still like me?”

Fortunately, humans are better than just that. Otherwise we would still be living in caves. Having a belief in something more than that helps people do the right thing when doing the right thing involves real sacrifice. “It makes me feel terrible.” “People are going to blame me.” “My life is going to be more difficult, and I am going to have to struggle more for less material well being.” Those feelings can sometimes be neutralized by, “But I know God wants me to do it that way.”

fadetogray on January 22, 2014 at 1:18 PM

I am still confused about who you consider the “real baby killers” that the religious right supposedly wants to re-elect.

Athanasius on January 22, 2014 at 12:52 PM

I thought it was clear, and I suspect you are just being rhetorical, but okay.

The baby killers are the ones supporting the abortions of fetuses we can all look at and see is a baby, like the babies Gosnell was killing.

I did not say they wanted to reelect the baby killers. I said they would rather let the baby killers be reelected than support someone like me to stop them.

Thus they choose candidates like Akin, and we get Senators like McCaskill.

fadetogray on January 22, 2014 at 1:25 PM

fadetogray on January 22, 2014 at 1:18 PM

Lolz! Point proved. Too easy.

Bmore on January 22, 2014 at 1:32 PM

fadetogray on January 22, 2014 at 1:25 PM

Oh, because you are so much smarter than us “Christianists”?

You are all hat. No cattle.

Give it a rest.

kingsjester on January 22, 2014 at 1:35 PM

Wait…. on the other thread Verbal said the war on Abortion was over….hmmmm./

CWchangedhisNicagain on January 22, 2014 at 2:32 PM

I thought it was clear, and I suspect you are just being rhetorical, but okay.

The baby killers are the ones supporting the abortions of fetuses we can all look at and see is a baby, like the babies Gosnell was killing.

I did not say they wanted to reelect the baby killers. I said they would rather let the baby killers be reelected than support someone like me to stop them.

Thus they choose candidates like Akin, and we get Senators like McCaskill.

fadetogray on January 22, 2014 at 1:25 PM

No, I wasn’t being rhetorical, I was being dense. :-)

Now that I get you, here’s the problem: fetal development is such that it is possible to see that a fetus is a baby at eight weeks. arms, legs, hands, feet, fingers, toes, eyes, ears, nose, mouth–it’s all there. Heartbeat is detectable at six weeks, as are brainwaves. Now, pro-lifers (including the “extremist” religious right) are advocating for an abortion ban at twenty weeks. By your standards, that should be completely uncontroversial, and those who support it should be applauded.

However, by your standard, they also aren’t going near far enough. They should be seeking at least a ban on abortion after the first trimester, if not after the second month. Would you support that?

If so, then the gap between you and those you denigrate would be very small indeed. While it is undoubtedly true that many if not the vast majority of pro-lifers would like to see a ban on abortion from conception (with or without the standard three exceptions), I think it’s reasonable to say that all pro-lifers would consider it a victory of enormous proportions to be able to get a post-first trimester ban in place. So why not work with them to achieve that?

Athanasius on January 22, 2014 at 2:35 PM

I will say that I agree that the candidates pro-lifers support have got to be smarter, more politically astute, and more articulate in defending their position. Todd Akin was none of those.

Athanasius on January 22, 2014 at 2:36 PM

I will say that I agree that the candidates pro-lifers support have got to be smarter, more politically astute, and more articulate in defending their position. Todd Akin was none of those.

Athanasius on January 22, 2014 at 2:36 PM

Problem is that most politicians (with a few notable exceptions like Tom Coburn and Ron Paul) don’t have the medical background necessary to discuss the intricacies of prenatal development. Candidates with no medical background need to avoid the discussion of fetal development because they cannot factually rebut liberal arguments without saying something stupid that completely undermines their credibility. Shifting the debate to the ethical side of it is where conservatives gain the higher ground. Republicans need to learn how to use the pivot to frame the question on their terms and use their talking points. They lose when victimization and “women’s rights” become the focus of the debate. Memorize a short little, medically accurate speech to give every time you’re asked the question.

blammm on January 22, 2014 at 3:16 PM

Agreed, blammm.

Athanasius on January 22, 2014 at 3:24 PM

Cuomo needs to look past the 70% of New Yorkers are pro-choice and realize that most of them support some restrictions on abortion-just as the Europeans do.

There’s a big difference between pro-choice and pro-infanticide. Cuomo is trying to lump all pro-choice people as wanting no abortion restrictions and that is far from the truth.

talkingpoints on January 22, 2014 at 5:14 PM

New thread up here for you pro abortion types.

Bmore on January 22, 2014 at 8:47 PM

Schadenfreude

Bmore on January 22, 2014 at 8:48 PM

Comment pages: 1 2