Get E-Mail Updates

God's Politics Blog

Two-Thirds of Americans Say They're Both: "Pro-Life" AND "Pro-Choice"

by Cathleen Falsani 01-17-2012 | 2:44pm
Print
26 Comments | Login or Register to post comments
Photo by Jenny Poole via http://www.wylio.com/credits/Flickr/4752357353
"It's Complicated." Photo by Jenny Poole via Wylio http://www.wylio.com/credits/Flickr/4752357353

A fascinating new study by the Public Religion Research Institute found that two-thirds of all Americans identify with both the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" labels simultaneously.

The PRRI reports that 7-in-10 Americans say the term “pro-choice” describes them "somewhat" or "very well," and nearly two-thirds simultaneously say the term “pro-life” describes them "somewhat" or "very well."

"This overlapping identity is present in virtually every demographic group," the report said.

In one of the largest public opinion surveys ever conducted on the subject of abortion and religion, PRRI's study, "Millennials, Abortion and Religion Survey," uncovered "large generational differences on two issues that have often been linked in political discourse: abortion and same-sex marriage."

According to the survey, Americans ages 18-29 (a.k.a., "Millennials") strongly support legal access to abortion services in their local communities despite being conflicted about the morality of abortion itself.

"On the issue of abortion, many Americans hold complex views and fluid identities,” said PRRI research director Daniel Cox “For some time now, Americans have held a stable tension between two views: majorities both say that abortion is morally wrong and say that it should be legal in all or most cases. The binary ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ labels don’t reflect this complexity.”

PRRI CEO Dr. Robert P. Jones added, "“Millennials embody the decoupling of the so-called ‘values voter’ agenda. On the issue of abortion, Millennials mirror their parents’ views, with about 6-in-10 saying abortion should be legal in all or most cases. But they are much more supportive than their parents of allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry. This suggests that we may see these issues moving on separate tracks in the future.”

The PRRI study also found that:

  • A solid majority of Americans say abortion should be legal in all (19 percent) or most (37 percent) cases, compared to 4-in-10 who say it should be illegal in all (14 percent) or most (26 percent) cases. With the exception of white evangelical Protestants, majorities of every major religious group say abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
  • Nearly 6-in-10 (58 percent) Americans say that at least some health care professionals in their communities should provide legal abortions.
  • The binary “pro-choice”/“pro-life” labels do not reflect the complexity of Americans’ views on abortion. Seven-in-ten Americans say the term “pro-choice” describes them somewhat or very well, and nearly two-thirds simultaneously say the term “pro-life” describes them somewhat or very well.  This overlapping identity is present in virtually every demographic group.
  • Majorities of Americans simultaneously say abortion is morally wrong (52 percent) and that it should be legal in all or most cases (56 percent).
  • The study identified and tested a number of hypotheses about independent influences on attitudes about the legality of abortion. Among these, having seen MTV’s reality shows about unmarried pregnant teenagers has a positive impact on support for the legality of abortion, while recently seeing an ultrasound has a negative impact on support for the legality of abortion.
  • Among Americans who attend church at least once or twice a month, majorities report hearing their clergy talk about the issue of abortion (54 percent) or homosexuality (51 percent) in church. Catholics are significantly more likely than Protestants to hear about abortion in church.
  • More than 7-in-10 (72 percent) religious Americans believe it is possible to disagree with the teachings of their religion on the issue of abortion and still be considered a person of good standing in their faith. A majority of all major religious groups, including Catholics and white evangelical Protestants agree with this statement.

Read the full report HERE.

26 Comments | Login or Register to post comments
Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Related Stories

Resources

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: speaker

01-17-2012 @ 4:56pm

One factor could be the reality that there is a subtle difference between saying abortion is morally problimatic and that it should be against the law.  Nobody thinks that abortion is a good thing and yet, apart from a very vocal minority, most people recognize the coplexities of issues sorounding womans rights, the definition of personhood, problems of rape, socio economic realities of bringing children into the world, and the actual practical outcome of abortion laws.  

So much of the pro-ife rehtoric is focused not on stopping abortion or dealing with realities of it existance, but of simply making illegal.  It is framed in a perspective of personal piety "I don't want my tax money going to abortions" or "I don't want to live in a nation that allows abortions."  The subject of these arguements is the self and pruity if ideology.  This is not to say that there are not those that are genuinly worried about justice for unborn children, but even then the justice line stops at unborn.  Once they are born they must pay for the sins of their parents. 

It could also simply be that nobody wants to be labled as pro-death or anti-choice.

by: Sam Hamilton

01-19-2012 @ 10:35am
in reply to: speaker

speaker,

The reason that a lot of the pro-life rhetoric is focused on making abortion illegal (or at least overturning Roe v. Wade) is that pro-life activists understand that once abortion is made illegal the rate of its occurance would go down.  No, it wouldn't go away, just as many immoral activities that are deemed illegal under law don't go away, but the incidence would go down.

But making abortion illegal is not the sum-total of pro-life activism.  Pro-life activists are heavily involved in promoting alternatives to abortion as well as non-profits that assist expextant and new mothers.  In general, those who are pro-life are also advocates of programs that attempt to delay sexual activity until marriage so that there are fewer people in the position of contemplating abortion in the first place.  You might not think these measures are sufficient or effective, but to say pro-lifers are only concerned with outlawing abortion is simplistic.

I also don't see what your objection is to the view of pro-lifers who say they don't want to live in a country that condones abortion with its laws.  I've heard many Christians use the slogan "Not in my name" in reference to all sorts of things they oppose (the war in Iraq comes to mind first) that are being done "in their name."  I don't know why it's objectionable for pro-lifes to take the same philosophy.  If our government is truly an extension of the will of the American people we have a duty to make sure it's not condoning things we find abhorrent.

by: speaker

01-17-2012 @ 4:56pm

One factor could be the reality that there is a subtle difference between saying abortion is morally problimatic and that it should be against the law.  Nobody thinks that abortion is a good thing and yet, apart from a very vocal minority, most people recognize the coplexities of issues sorounding womans rights, the definition of personhood, problems of rape, socio economic realities of bringing children into the world, and the actual practical outcome of abortion laws.  

So much of the pro-ife rehtoric is focused not on stopping abortion or dealing with realities of it existance, but of simply making illegal.  It is framed in a perspective of personal piety "I don't want my tax money going to abortions" or "I don't want to live in a nation that allows abortions."  The subject of these arguements is the self and pruity if ideology.  This is not to say that there are not those that are genuinly worried about justice for unborn children, but even then the justice line stops at unborn.  Once they are born they must pay for the sins of their parents. 

It could also simply be that nobody wants to be labled as pro-death or anti-choice.

by: jesse3

01-17-2012 @ 5:30pm

If you actually read the survey responses, you'll see in fact that a majority of Americans are opposed to making most abortions legal. This story is actually inaccurate.

For example, majorities would not allow legalized abortion because: 1) the woman is low income and can't afford a child; 2) she is not married and doesn't want to marry the man; and 3) if she is in high school (49% want it illegal for that reason). Note that all these reasons relate to reasons of convenience, which make up over 90% of all abortions.

The only reasons a majority of people would want it legal is because of rape, birth defect, or physical health risks to the mother (the emotional health question makes no sense, as there are no documented *positive* mental health effects of abortion). Note that these make up about less than 5% of all abortions.

What this survey actually says is that people are ignorant of the circumstances in which most abortions take place. I would appreciate it if you reported these results more accurately.

by: speaker

01-17-2012 @ 8:10pm
in reply to: jesse3

I believe the point was that most Americans allow abortion in some cases and don't want to allow it others, thus they identify as both pro-life and pro-choice.  By introducing the number of abortions per category you are actually introducing a different argument, not refuting the former.  I'm not saying that your information is irrelevant in general, but that your accusation of inaccuracy is unfounded because you have actually changed accused Miss/Mrs. Falcani of being wrong about something that she never even argued.  Finally while you are correct in saying that most people disagree with having an abortion in the last three catagories (hishschool, income, not wanting to marry the man), only one of these was really a statisticly signfigant majority (not that ethics can be confirmed or denied by majority vote).  I think Falsani wrote a very thought provoking article and I thank her for doing so.

by: thevanished

01-17-2012 @ 8:22pm
in reply to: speaker

The argument Cathleen is making is that Americans support legal abortions in most instances. That simply isn't true.

 

 

 

 

by: speaker

01-17-2012 @ 8:44pm
in reply to: thevanished

Check page 13 of the survey. 

by: jesse3

01-17-2012 @ 8:25pm
in reply to: speaker

"I believe the point was that most Americans allow abortion in some cases and don't want to allow it others, thus they identify as both pro-life and pro-choice."

--This wasn't the point at all. She repeatedly stated (incorrectly) that most Americans believe abortion is immoral but want it to be legal in all or most cases. This happens to be the identical position as Sojo--or Jim Wallis and most contributors here, at least. They like to talk about it as a "complex issue" and report on this poll because they are arguing that most people, including most young people, agree with them and support their position. The pro-life position is futile, the logic goes, because most people want most abortions to be legal.

A close reading of this poll shows that this statement is inaccurate. I hope that the author attempts to correct this, or at least write a follow up piece that mentions these findings. 

by: Sam Hamilton

01-19-2012 @ 9:12am
in reply to: jesse3

Thanks for digging a little deeper.  Good points.

by: thevanished

01-17-2012 @ 7:29pm

Jesse is correct. A substantial percentage of people believe a majority of abortions are the result of rape, incest or a threat to the life of the mother.

As such, it is easy to manufacture a poll like this, and hard-line pro-choicers will be quick to disseminate it, knowing most people don't piddle with questions and responses, much less cross-tabs.

I think it speaks to the fact the pro-life movement needs to get better at the PR aspect of all this. Fight for legislation in states that bans abortion in all instances other than rape, incest and life of the mother, and reveal the pro-choice side for what it is, which is willing to permit women perfectly capable of giving birth to destroy a child.

by: speaker

01-17-2012 @ 8:40pm
in reply to: thevanished

I think the fight for legislation to make abortion illegal is exactly what is wrong with the pro-life movement, because that is mostly all it is.  Legislation will not stop abortion from happening, it may lessen the access to some extent, but not even that is gauranteed.  Finding ways to care for pregnant mothers and making sure that the children are supported after they are born would be much better way to spend time money.  Educating woman on their options and providing all the help and support that we can would be much more affective in terms of prevention and justice.  Jesse's catagorizing most abortions as a matter of conveniance is also a destructive and antagonizing label that gives the pro-life movement, the bad PR of which you speak.  Pregnant teenagers don't view abortion as a matter of conveniance.  Nobody thinks abortion is a good thing and nobody is happy about getting one.  Calling them a murderer in the process doesn't make Christians look like seekers of justice.  It makes us look like jerks with no empathy.  

by: kansasmennonite

01-20-2012 @ 8:20pm
in reply to: thevanished

Did you just say that it's ok to destroy a child in case of rape or incest?


 


I don't understand the -5 likes when the question is a legitimate question that hasn't been answered yet.

by: Sojourner_Truth

01-17-2012 @ 10:41pm

"For example, majorities would not allow legalized abortion because: 1) the woman is low income and can't afford a child; 2) she is not married and doesn't want to marry the man; and 3) if she is in high school (49% want it illegal for that reason). Note that all these reasons relate to reasons of convenience, which make up over 90% of all abortions."

1) 52%, is technically a majority, but from a statistical point of view the 2% difference is relatively insignificant. Therefore, I would not categorize this with your other statements. I think it's fair to say that Americans are roughly split on this issue.

2) "She is not married and doesn't want to marry the man". A 58% majority in that case is significant, however it doesn't correspond directly with the statistic that you mentioned above where 90% of abortions are for social or convenience reasons. Specifically, the study may be over specific by asking the question "She is not married and doesn't want to marry the man". The more revealing and contemporary question, although much broader is: "She did not want the baby due to inconvenience, or the baby is simply unwanted". Statistics prove it by showing that currently 40% of children are born out of wedlock. If the survey's question had been asked in the sixties it may have been much ore meaningful. Therefore, the conclusion that you draw from this point is inconclusive and unsupported. I'm not sure why they asked a question that is "outdated".

3)Again a two percent difference as the "majority" could be misleading.

This is a matter of mathematics and not personal opinion.

by: Sojourner_Truth

01-17-2012 @ 10:56pm

Inevitably the problem most people have with this issue is that they are incapable of separating the two points of view, pro-choice vs. anti-abortion.

Believing that something is wrong vs. making it illegal although directly related (in a democracy) are two separate issues that have to be decided upon. Although, you'd be hard pressed to find many that were pro-abortion, you will find many that are pro-choice. Which simply means allowing someone to make moral decisions for themselves vs. enforcing it by law.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very glad that many things are illegal by law! It's just one of many issues when living in a democracy where people get to vote on what they approve of or disapprove of. That's how the system works. However, the system itself is inherently secular.

Many on the far right argue for prayer in schools, while at the same time trumpeting their love for living in a free country where there is freedom of religion. One can't worship democracy while simultaneously condemning freedom. It's jst the nature of the beast (no pun itended). I've never been able to wrap my mind around why they can't put two and two together on these types of issues.

by: Sam Hamilton

01-19-2012 @ 9:39am
in reply to: Sojourner_Truth

"One can't worship democracy while simultaneously condemning freedom. It's jst the nature of the beast (no pun itended). I've never been able to wrap my mind around why they can't put two and two together on these types of issues."

I don't see how this relates to abortion.  There's nothing inconsistent with supporting "freedom" in the abstract while also supporting laws in certain areas that restrict freedom.  I assume you support "freedom" as opposed to tyranny, yet also support certain laws that restrict freedom, right?  The choice isn't between anarchy and tyranny. There's a middle ground in which most people find themselves.  The question is "how much freedom?"  Pro-lifers look at the question: "Should someone have the freedom to end the life of an unborn human?" and answer "no."  There's nothing inconsistent about that.

by: Sojourner_Truth

01-17-2012 @ 10:56pm

Inevitably the problem most people have with this issue is that they are incapable of separating the two points of view, pro-choice vs. anti-abortion.

Believing that something is wrong vs. making it illegal although directly related (in a democracy) are two separate issues that have to be decided upon. Although, you'd be hard pressed to find many that were pro-abortion, you will find many that are pro-choice. Which simply means allowing someone to make moral decisions for themselves vs. enforcing it by law.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very glad that many things are illegal by law! It's just one of many issues when living in a democracy where people get to vote on what they approve of or disapprove of. That's how the system works. However, the system itself is inherently secular.

Many on the far right argue for prayer in schools, while at the same time trumpeting their love for living in a free country where there is freedom of religion. One can't worship democracy while simultaneously condemning freedom. It's jst the nature of the beast (no pun intended). I've never been able to wrap my mind around why they can't put two and two together on these types of issues.

by: scat

01-17-2012 @ 11:37pm
in reply to: Sojourner_Truth

Sojourner -- In response to your last question, I think at least part of the problem is that so many people think in all or nothing terms. At least a lot of people I know on the right seem to do so.
To them, if something is morally wrong then they beleive it must also be made illegal. This of course ignores the reality of a mixed culture society like ours where there is great divergence of opinion on some issues and the majority does not beleive as they do. I have met so many people over the years who just can't imagine that anyone would disagree with them on anything. And when you have a group of people who agree amongst themselves on this issue, it makes it even less likely that any one of them will entertain the idea of someone dissenting.

To add to the mix, there are always those who,for personal political gain,  will at least publicly support those who want to make a moral wrong into a legal wrong. 

The good part is that the more the subject is discussed, the more people are forced into thinking about the issues and hopefully that will lead to some solutions that would be far more constructive than the old ideas that basically put the entire burden on the birth mother.  LIke the earlier commenter, I would like to see more energy and funds devoted to assisting "fatherless" children when they are brought into the world. 

by: Sam Hamilton

01-19-2012 @ 9:46am
in reply to: scat

"I think at least part of the problem is that so many people think in all or nothing terms. At least a lot of people I know on the right seem to do so.  To them, if something is morally wrong then they beleive it must also be made illegal.  This of course ignores the reality of a mixed culture society like ours where there is great divergence of opinion on some issues and the majority does not beleive as they do."

scat,

I think you'd have a hard time finding anyone who thinks that anything that is immoral should be made illegal.  Yes, on the issue of abortion, there are many who believe that abortion is immoral and should be made illegal, but this standard isn't applicable across the board for anyone (at least anyone I've met).  The view that abortion is immoral and should be made illegal doesn't ignore the fact we live in a society where people have different views.  Just because the majority of people might not agree with someone on something doesn't mean they should refrain from trying to legislate their belief of what is moral.  It might not be an effective strategy (changing hearts and minds before going the legislative route might be more effective), but there's nothing wrong with working to make something illegal just because the majority doesn't agree.

by: agnosticnomore

01-17-2012 @ 11:49pm

Here we are again discussing the issue of abortion. First it is not possible to legislate morality.
Then on the issue of morality we must examine who we are in relation to how we treat others. It seems impossible to me that we can be so concerned about a woman's choice to do what she will, when we can live in a country that so easily wars, often from great distances with bombs and drones, against other innocent noncombatants many who are women and and children. I know far to many persons who are anti-abortion who are perfectly comfortable with wars of empire. I suggest if you wish to eliminate abortions, examine our propensity to make war.

by: jesse3

01-18-2012 @ 2:54am
in reply to: agnosticnomore

"First it is not possible to legislate morality."

--Indeed. It is impossible for us to prohibit murder, child sexual abuse, theft, etc. We cannot do such things because it is not possible to legislate morality. 

by: speaker

01-18-2012 @ 2:56am
in reply to: agnosticnomore

And I might add that we are perfectly willing to let those children starve or be separated from thier families. 

by: Sam Hamilton

01-19-2012 @ 9:48am
in reply to: agnosticnomore

It is possible to legislate morality.  I don't know what you mean when you say it's not possible.  We do it all the time.

But that's a good point about wars.  Our country condones all sorts of bad things.  But I'm not sure why we should continue condoning abortion just because we condone other bad things.

by: agnosticnomore

01-19-2012 @ 11:06am
in reply to: Sam Hamilton

What I have suggested here is that we as a nation must look at the larger energy of our actions. When Jesus commanded us to Love our neighbors He was not only referring to unborn, but to all. Our actions as a military power is extremely un-Christ like. If the same resources that we spent on military might was used for other purposes we would not have the energy problems (dependence) that we currently experience. If our resources were used to serve our neighbors as Jesus commanded we would likely have a more peaceful and contented world population, we also would have a more peaceful country so that efforts to educate our populace would be more effective. Making abortion illegal will not stop people who want them from seeking them from sources that may be less safe.

You say that you don't know what it means to not be able to legislate morality, we do it all the time. Well, Laws do not make people moral.  Morality is a choice. We have a great many laws now that are not followed. It is a stain on our (the U.S.A.) morality that we use our military to run roughshod over other peoples lives in order to better our own at their expense. It is my contention that if we followed the Law of Love we then would more easily reduce the need/desire for abortions.

by: Sam Hamilton

01-19-2012 @ 1:28pm
in reply to: agnosticnomore

agnosticnomore,

I totally agree with you re: improper resource allocation, wars, militarization and better uses for those resources.  If that’s all you were getting at then I agree.  I just don’t get why we can’t work towards peaceful resolution of conflicts at the same time as we work to outlaw abortion.  Just because we haven’t accomplished the former yet doesn’t mean we can’t start on the latter.

As for legislating morality, I don’t think I agree.  For example, attacking someone physically is clearly both immoral (in most instances) and illegal in our society.  I’m guessing that, over time, the number of assaults would rise in our society if there was no legal punishment for attacking someone else.  Lots of people have impulses to lash out physically at other people, yet they hold back.  The law is one of the reasons they do so.  Not just because of fear of punishment, but also because our laws have told society that this kind of behavior is not condoned.  It’s ingrained from childhood that assaulting other people is not how we do things in our society.  (Obviously, it doesn’t stop everyone, no law does.)  The sin is not being angry enough to want to lash out at someone; the sin is actually doing so.  The law is part of the societal structure that keeps us from acting out sinfully.  It’s not the sum-total of what keeps us from sinning, but it’s part of it.  So in that sense, it is law that helps make us more moral people.  The law shapes how we respond to certain situations.  

If this line of thought doesn’t convince you, perhaps you should look at it from the perspective that many people here at GP do.  Many contributors and commenters here believe that it’s our duty to change our laws to better conform to Biblical standards of justice.  They believe that doing so will make our society more moral because it will be more in line with God’s teachings.  For a more concrete example, they believe that justice is done when the poor are taken care of through government redistribution of resources regardless of the hearts and minds of those whose resources have been appropriated for this task.  They believe a more moral society is one in which the poor are taken care of, period.  This is legislating morality, is it not?   

(Sorry this is so long!)

by: agnosticnomore

01-20-2012 @ 8:02pm
in reply to: Sam Hamilton

 

Quote Sam. "Many contributors and commenters here believe that it’s our duty to change our laws to better conform to Biblical standards of justice.  They believe that doing so will make our society more moral because it will be more in line with God’s teachings.  For a more concrete example, they believe that justice is done when the poor are taken care of through government redistribution of resources regardless of the hearts and minds of those whose resources have been appropriated for this task.  They believe a more moral society is one in which the poor are taken care of, period."

 

Are you for real here?  I have not gotten that sense from the majority of persons that post here, but I have read this same accusation made many times. I am sorry to hear you say this as I had taken you for a more thoughtful person.

I believe that most of the serious and thoughtful here are suggesting that we seek a more just system of compensation for the contributions made.

by: Bungarra

01-19-2012 @ 4:01am

Today a report on the ABC (Australia!) here summarized the difficult issues involved. For the Big Picture not just the USA see "Rise of unsafe abortions 'deeply disturbing'" on http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-19/rise-of-unsafe-abortions-27deeply-... or the original paper on the Lancet. Text of paper is included on the ABC Website.

Original Research Article in The Lancet – Author Version Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008 *G Sedgh ScD, S Singh PhD, S K Henshaw PhD, A Bankole PhD: Guttmacher Institute, New York, NY USA I H Shah PhD, E Åhman MA: World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland Published online January,19th,2012 DOI:10.1016/S0140 ‐ 6736 (11) 61786 ‐ 8 Abstract available on The Lancet Web site.

I think that like the war on drugs, we need to carefully re examine just what is happening and acknowledge that restrictions to safe abortion will kill more women. If you want to reduce abortions make a wide range of contraception systems plus education available.

As for nations like Holland and Portugal, removing penalties for drug use has reduced the numbers of users, so reducing the numbers of unplanned pregnancies will reduce the numbers of abortions. Time to get real and not deny human instincts. The greatest cause of death in women 16 to 45 yrs, in the South Pacific are botched abortions.

To say that we as a community can legally stop all this by banning abortions is to deny the nature of our humanness. Harm minimization is needed. You will need good sex education in the community as well. Just hidding behind the statement that sex education increases inappropiate ie out of marrage 'sexual activity', suggests a simplistic attitude. The media does not tell us why sex and its importance in stable relationships.

I find it interesting that the Puritans seem to have been the people who rescued the idea that Sex is a good given gift and should be used properly. The concept of romantic love was assisted by this insight. Time to stop being judgmental, that is God's prerogative, but look at how best to reduce harm and trauma all round.

Note again - reference above is to the Australian Broadcast Commission website, not the ABC of the USA. I have had a few snide remarks in the past about the ABC as people did not read the address properly and see the '.au' at the end.

Cheers All.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: Sam Hamilton

01-19-2012 @ 9:39am
in reply to: Sojourner_Truth

"One can't worship democracy while simultaneously condemning freedom. It's jst the nature of the beast (no pun itended). I've never been able to wrap my mind around why they can't put two and two together on these types of issues."

I don't see how this relates to abortion.  There's nothing inconsistent with supporting "freedom" in the abstract while also supporting laws in certain areas that restrict freedom.  I assume you support "freedom" as opposed to tyranny, yet also support certain laws that restrict freedom, right?  The choice isn't between anarchy and tyranny. There's a middle ground in which most people find themselves.  The question is "how much freedom?"  Pro-lifers look at the question: "Should someone have the freedom to end the life of an unborn human?" and answer "no."  There's nothing inconsistent about that.

by: jesse3

01-18-2012 @ 2:54am
in reply to: agnosticnomore

"First it is not possible to legislate morality."

--Indeed. It is impossible for us to prohibit murder, child sexual abuse, theft, etc. We cannot do such things because it is not possible to legislate morality. 

by: jesse3

01-17-2012 @ 5:30pm

If you actually read the survey responses, you'll see in fact that a majority of Americans are opposed to making most abortions legal. This story is actually inaccurate.

For example, majorities would not allow legalized abortion because: 1) the woman is low income and can't afford a child; 2) she is not married and doesn't want to marry the man; and 3) if she is in high school (49% want it illegal for that reason). Note that all these reasons relate to reasons of convenience, which make up over 90% of all abortions.

The only reasons a majority of people would want it legal is because of rape, birth defect, or physical health risks to the mother (the emotional health question makes no sense, as there are no documented *positive* mental health effects of abortion). Note that these make up about less than 5% of all abortions.

What this survey actually says is that people are ignorant of the circumstances in which most abortions take place. I would appreciate it if you reported these results more accurately.

by: Bungarra

01-19-2012 @ 4:01am

Today a report on the ABC (Australia!) here summarized the difficult issues involved. For the Big Picture not just the USA see "Rise of unsafe abortions 'deeply disturbing'" on http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-19/rise-of-unsafe-abortions-27deeply-... or the original paper on the Lancet. Text of paper is included on the ABC Website.

Original Research Article in The Lancet – Author Version Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008 *G Sedgh ScD, S Singh PhD, S K Henshaw PhD, A Bankole PhD: Guttmacher Institute, New York, NY USA I H Shah PhD, E Åhman MA: World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland Published online January,19th,2012 DOI:10.1016/S0140 ‐ 6736 (11) 61786 ‐ 8 Abstract available on The Lancet Web site.

I think that like the war on drugs, we need to carefully re examine just what is happening and acknowledge that restrictions to safe abortion will kill more women. If you want to reduce abortions make a wide range of contraception systems plus education available.

As for nations like Holland and Portugal, removing penalties for drug use has reduced the numbers of users, so reducing the numbers of unplanned pregnancies will reduce the numbers of abortions. Time to get real and not deny human instincts. The greatest cause of death in women 16 to 45 yrs, in the South Pacific are botched abortions.

To say that we as a community can legally stop all this by banning abortions is to deny the nature of our humanness. Harm minimization is needed. You will need good sex education in the community as well. Just hidding behind the statement that sex education increases inappropiate ie out of marrage 'sexual activity', suggests a simplistic attitude. The media does not tell us why sex and its importance in stable relationships.

I find it interesting that the Puritans seem to have been the people who rescued the idea that Sex is a good given gift and should be used properly. The concept of romantic love was assisted by this insight. Time to stop being judgmental, that is God's prerogative, but look at how best to reduce harm and trauma all round.

Note again - reference above is to the Australian Broadcast Commission website, not the ABC of the USA. I have had a few snide remarks in the past about the ABC as people did not read the address properly and see the '.au' at the end.

Cheers All.

by: Sam Hamilton

01-19-2012 @ 9:12am
in reply to: jesse3

Thanks for digging a little deeper.  Good points.

by: Sam Hamilton

01-19-2012 @ 9:48am
in reply to: agnosticnomore

It is possible to legislate morality.  I don't know what you mean when you say it's not possible.  We do it all the time.

But that's a good point about wars.  Our country condones all sorts of bad things.  But I'm not sure why we should continue condoning abortion just because we condone other bad things.

by: Sam Hamilton

01-19-2012 @ 10:35am
in reply to: speaker

speaker,

The reason that a lot of the pro-life rhetoric is focused on making abortion illegal (or at least overturning Roe v. Wade) is that pro-life activists understand that once abortion is made illegal the rate of its occurance would go down.  No, it wouldn't go away, just as many immoral activities that are deemed illegal under law don't go away, but the incidence would go down.

But making abortion illegal is not the sum-total of pro-life activism.  Pro-life activists are heavily involved in promoting alternatives to abortion as well as non-profits that assist expextant and new mothers.  In general, those who are pro-life are also advocates of programs that attempt to delay sexual activity until marriage so that there are fewer people in the position of contemplating abortion in the first place.  You might not think these measures are sufficient or effective, but to say pro-lifers are only concerned with outlawing abortion is simplistic.

I also don't see what your objection is to the view of pro-lifers who say they don't want to live in a country that condones abortion with its laws.  I've heard many Christians use the slogan "Not in my name" in reference to all sorts of things they oppose (the war in Iraq comes to mind first) that are being done "in their name."  I don't know why it's objectionable for pro-lifes to take the same philosophy.  If our government is truly an extension of the will of the American people we have a duty to make sure it's not condoning things we find abhorrent.

by: Sam Hamilton

01-19-2012 @ 1:28pm
in reply to: agnosticnomore

agnosticnomore,

I totally agree with you re: improper resource allocation, wars, militarization and better uses for those resources.  If that’s all you were getting at then I agree.  I just don’t get why we can’t work towards peaceful resolution of conflicts at the same time as we work to outlaw abortion.  Just because we haven’t accomplished the former yet doesn’t mean we can’t start on the latter.

As for legislating morality, I don’t think I agree.  For example, attacking someone physically is clearly both immoral (in most instances) and illegal in our society.  I’m guessing that, over time, the number of assaults would rise in our society if there was no legal punishment for attacking someone else.  Lots of people have impulses to lash out physically at other people, yet they hold back.  The law is one of the reasons they do so.  Not just because of fear of punishment, but also because our laws have told society that this kind of behavior is not condoned.  It’s ingrained from childhood that assaulting other people is not how we do things in our society.  (Obviously, it doesn’t stop everyone, no law does.)  The sin is not being angry enough to want to lash out at someone; the sin is actually doing so.  The law is part of the societal structure that keeps us from acting out sinfully.  It’s not the sum-total of what keeps us from sinning, but it’s part of it.  So in that sense, it is law that helps make us more moral people.  The law shapes how we respond to certain situations.  

If this line of thought doesn’t convince you, perhaps you should look at it from the perspective that many people here at GP do.  Many contributors and commenters here believe that it’s our duty to change our laws to better conform to Biblical standards of justice.  They believe that doing so will make our society more moral because it will be more in line with God’s teachings.  For a more concrete example, they believe that justice is done when the poor are taken care of through government redistribution of resources regardless of the hearts and minds of those whose resources have been appropriated for this task.  They believe a more moral society is one in which the poor are taken care of, period.  This is legislating morality, is it not?   

(Sorry this is so long!)

by: speaker

01-17-2012 @ 8:40pm
in reply to: thevanished

I think the fight for legislation to make abortion illegal is exactly what is wrong with the pro-life movement, because that is mostly all it is.  Legislation will not stop abortion from happening, it may lessen the access to some extent, but not even that is gauranteed.  Finding ways to care for pregnant mothers and making sure that the children are supported after they are born would be much better way to spend time money.  Educating woman on their options and providing all the help and support that we can would be much more affective in terms of prevention and justice.  Jesse's catagorizing most abortions as a matter of conveniance is also a destructive and antagonizing label that gives the pro-life movement, the bad PR of which you speak.  Pregnant teenagers don't view abortion as a matter of conveniance.  Nobody thinks abortion is a good thing and nobody is happy about getting one.  Calling them a murderer in the process doesn't make Christians look like seekers of justice.  It makes us look like jerks with no empathy.  

by: Sojourner_Truth

01-17-2012 @ 10:41pm

"For example, majorities would not allow legalized abortion because: 1) the woman is low income and can't afford a child; 2) she is not married and doesn't want to marry the man; and 3) if she is in high school (49% want it illegal for that reason). Note that all these reasons relate to reasons of convenience, which make up over 90% of all abortions."

1) 52%, is technically a majority, but from a statistical point of view the 2% difference is relatively insignificant. Therefore, I would not categorize this with your other statements. I think it's fair to say that Americans are roughly split on this issue.

2) "She is not married and doesn't want to marry the man". A 58% majority in that case is significant, however it doesn't correspond directly with the statistic that you mentioned above where 90% of abortions are for social or convenience reasons. Specifically, the study may be over specific by asking the question "She is not married and doesn't want to marry the man". The more revealing and contemporary question, although much broader is: "She did not want the baby due to inconvenience, or the baby is simply unwanted". Statistics prove it by showing that currently 40% of children are born out of wedlock. If the survey's question had been asked in the sixties it may have been much ore meaningful. Therefore, the conclusion that you draw from this point is inconclusive and unsupported. I'm not sure why they asked a question that is "outdated".

3)Again a two percent difference as the "majority" could be misleading.

This is a matter of mathematics and not personal opinion.

by: Sojourner_Truth

01-17-2012 @ 10:56pm

Inevitably the problem most people have with this issue is that they are incapable of separating the two points of view, pro-choice vs. anti-abortion.

Believing that something is wrong vs. making it illegal although directly related (in a democracy) are two separate issues that have to be decided upon. Although, you'd be hard pressed to find many that were pro-abortion, you will find many that are pro-choice. Which simply means allowing someone to make moral decisions for themselves vs. enforcing it by law.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very glad that many things are illegal by law! It's just one of many issues when living in a democracy where people get to vote on what they approve of or disapprove of. That's how the system works. However, the system itself is inherently secular.

Many on the far right argue for prayer in schools, while at the same time trumpeting their love for living in a free country where there is freedom of religion. One can't worship democracy while simultaneously condemning freedom. It's jst the nature of the beast (no pun itended). I've never been able to wrap my mind around why they can't put two and two together on these types of issues.

by: Sojourner_Truth

01-17-2012 @ 10:56pm

Inevitably the problem most people have with this issue is that they are incapable of separating the two points of view, pro-choice vs. anti-abortion.

Believing that something is wrong vs. making it illegal although directly related (in a democracy) are two separate issues that have to be decided upon. Although, you'd be hard pressed to find many that were pro-abortion, you will find many that are pro-choice. Which simply means allowing someone to make moral decisions for themselves vs. enforcing it by law.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very glad that many things are illegal by law! It's just one of many issues when living in a democracy where people get to vote on what they approve of or disapprove of. That's how the system works. However, the system itself is inherently secular.

Many on the far right argue for prayer in schools, while at the same time trumpeting their love for living in a free country where there is freedom of religion. One can't worship democracy while simultaneously condemning freedom. It's jst the nature of the beast (no pun intended). I've never been able to wrap my mind around why they can't put two and two together on these types of issues.

by: scat

01-17-2012 @ 11:37pm
in reply to: Sojourner_Truth

Sojourner -- In response to your last question, I think at least part of the problem is that so many people think in all or nothing terms. At least a lot of people I know on the right seem to do so.
To them, if something is morally wrong then they beleive it must also be made illegal. This of course ignores the reality of a mixed culture society like ours where there is great divergence of opinion on some issues and the majority does not beleive as they do. I have met so many people over the years who just can't imagine that anyone would disagree with them on anything. And when you have a group of people who agree amongst themselves on this issue, it makes it even less likely that any one of them will entertain the idea of someone dissenting.

To add to the mix, there are always those who,for personal political gain,  will at least publicly support those who want to make a moral wrong into a legal wrong. 

The good part is that the more the subject is discussed, the more people are forced into thinking about the issues and hopefully that will lead to some solutions that would be far more constructive than the old ideas that basically put the entire burden on the birth mother.  LIke the earlier commenter, I would like to see more energy and funds devoted to assisting "fatherless" children when they are brought into the world. 

by: agnosticnomore

01-17-2012 @ 11:49pm

Here we are again discussing the issue of abortion. First it is not possible to legislate morality.
Then on the issue of morality we must examine who we are in relation to how we treat others. It seems impossible to me that we can be so concerned about a woman's choice to do what she will, when we can live in a country that so easily wars, often from great distances with bombs and drones, against other innocent noncombatants many who are women and and children. I know far to many persons who are anti-abortion who are perfectly comfortable with wars of empire. I suggest if you wish to eliminate abortions, examine our propensity to make war.

by: agnosticnomore

01-19-2012 @ 11:06am
in reply to: Sam Hamilton

What I have suggested here is that we as a nation must look at the larger energy of our actions. When Jesus commanded us to Love our neighbors He was not only referring to unborn, but to all. Our actions as a military power is extremely un-Christ like. If the same resources that we spent on military might was used for other purposes we would not have the energy problems (dependence) that we currently experience. If our resources were used to serve our neighbors as Jesus commanded we would likely have a more peaceful and contented world population, we also would have a more peaceful country so that efforts to educate our populace would be more effective. Making abortion illegal will not stop people who want them from seeking them from sources that may be less safe.

You say that you don't know what it means to not be able to legislate morality, we do it all the time. Well, Laws do not make people moral.  Morality is a choice. We have a great many laws now that are not followed. It is a stain on our (the U.S.A.) morality that we use our military to run roughshod over other peoples lives in order to better our own at their expense. It is my contention that if we followed the Law of Love we then would more easily reduce the need/desire for abortions.

by: speaker

01-17-2012 @ 4:56pm

One factor could be the reality that there is a subtle difference between saying abortion is morally problimatic and that it should be against the law.  Nobody thinks that abortion is a good thing and yet, apart from a very vocal minority, most people recognize the coplexities of issues sorounding womans rights, the definition of personhood, problems of rape, socio economic realities of bringing children into the world, and the actual practical outcome of abortion laws.  

So much of the pro-ife rehtoric is focused not on stopping abortion or dealing with realities of it existance, but of simply making illegal.  It is framed in a perspective of personal piety "I don't want my tax money going to abortions" or "I don't want to live in a nation that allows abortions."  The subject of these arguements is the self and pruity if ideology.  This is not to say that there are not those that are genuinly worried about justice for unborn children, but even then the justice line stops at unborn.  Once they are born they must pay for the sins of their parents. 

It could also simply be that nobody wants to be labled as pro-death or anti-choice.

by: speaker

01-17-2012 @ 8:44pm
in reply to: thevanished

Check page 13 of the survey. 

by: speaker

01-18-2012 @ 2:56am
in reply to: agnosticnomore

And I might add that we are perfectly willing to let those children starve or be separated from thier families. 

by: Sam Hamilton

01-19-2012 @ 9:46am
in reply to: scat

"I think at least part of the problem is that so many people think in all or nothing terms. At least a lot of people I know on the right seem to do so.  To them, if something is morally wrong then they beleive it must also be made illegal.  This of course ignores the reality of a mixed culture society like ours where there is great divergence of opinion on some issues and the majority does not beleive as they do."

scat,

I think you'd have a hard time finding anyone who thinks that anything that is immoral should be made illegal.  Yes, on the issue of abortion, there are many who believe that abortion is immoral and should be made illegal, but this standard isn't applicable across the board for anyone (at least anyone I've met).  The view that abortion is immoral and should be made illegal doesn't ignore the fact we live in a society where people have different views.  Just because the majority of people might not agree with someone on something doesn't mean they should refrain from trying to legislate their belief of what is moral.  It might not be an effective strategy (changing hearts and minds before going the legislative route might be more effective), but there's nothing wrong with working to make something illegal just because the majority doesn't agree.

by: speaker

01-17-2012 @ 4:56pm

One factor could be the reality that there is a subtle difference between saying abortion is morally problimatic and that it should be against the law.  Nobody thinks that abortion is a good thing and yet, apart from a very vocal minority, most people recognize the coplexities of issues sorounding womans rights, the definition of personhood, problems of rape, socio economic realities of bringing children into the world, and the actual practical outcome of abortion laws.  

So much of the pro-ife rehtoric is focused not on stopping abortion or dealing with realities of it existance, but of simply making illegal.  It is framed in a perspective of personal piety "I don't want my tax money going to abortions" or "I don't want to live in a nation that allows abortions."  The subject of these arguements is the self and pruity if ideology.  This is not to say that there are not those that are genuinly worried about justice for unborn children, but even then the justice line stops at unborn.  Once they are born they must pay for the sins of their parents. 

It could also simply be that nobody wants to be labled as pro-death or anti-choice.

by: thevanished

01-17-2012 @ 8:22pm
in reply to: speaker

The argument Cathleen is making is that Americans support legal abortions in most instances. That simply isn't true.

 

 

 

 

by: jesse3

01-17-2012 @ 8:25pm
in reply to: speaker

"I believe the point was that most Americans allow abortion in some cases and don't want to allow it others, thus they identify as both pro-life and pro-choice."

--This wasn't the point at all. She repeatedly stated (incorrectly) that most Americans believe abortion is immoral but want it to be legal in all or most cases. This happens to be the identical position as Sojo--or Jim Wallis and most contributors here, at least. They like to talk about it as a "complex issue" and report on this poll because they are arguing that most people, including most young people, agree with them and support their position. The pro-life position is futile, the logic goes, because most people want most abortions to be legal.

A close reading of this poll shows that this statement is inaccurate. I hope that the author attempts to correct this, or at least write a follow up piece that mentions these findings. 

by: agnosticnomore

01-20-2012 @ 8:02pm
in reply to: Sam Hamilton

 

Quote Sam. "Many contributors and commenters here believe that it’s our duty to change our laws to better conform to Biblical standards of justice.  They believe that doing so will make our society more moral because it will be more in line with God’s teachings.  For a more concrete example, they believe that justice is done when the poor are taken care of through government redistribution of resources regardless of the hearts and minds of those whose resources have been appropriated for this task.  They believe a more moral society is one in which the poor are taken care of, period."

 

Are you for real here?  I have not gotten that sense from the majority of persons that post here, but I have read this same accusation made many times. I am sorry to hear you say this as I had taken you for a more thoughtful person.

I believe that most of the serious and thoughtful here are suggesting that we seek a more just system of compensation for the contributions made.

by: thevanished

01-17-2012 @ 7:29pm

Jesse is correct. A substantial percentage of people believe a majority of abortions are the result of rape, incest or a threat to the life of the mother.

As such, it is easy to manufacture a poll like this, and hard-line pro-choicers will be quick to disseminate it, knowing most people don't piddle with questions and responses, much less cross-tabs.

I think it speaks to the fact the pro-life movement needs to get better at the PR aspect of all this. Fight for legislation in states that bans abortion in all instances other than rape, incest and life of the mother, and reveal the pro-choice side for what it is, which is willing to permit women perfectly capable of giving birth to destroy a child.

by: speaker

01-17-2012 @ 8:10pm
in reply to: jesse3

I believe the point was that most Americans allow abortion in some cases and don't want to allow it others, thus they identify as both pro-life and pro-choice.  By introducing the number of abortions per category you are actually introducing a different argument, not refuting the former.  I'm not saying that your information is irrelevant in general, but that your accusation of inaccuracy is unfounded because you have actually changed accused Miss/Mrs. Falcani of being wrong about something that she never even argued.  Finally while you are correct in saying that most people disagree with having an abortion in the last three catagories (hishschool, income, not wanting to marry the man), only one of these was really a statisticly signfigant majority (not that ethics can be confirmed or denied by majority vote).  I think Falsani wrote a very thought provoking article and I thank her for doing so.

by: kansasmennonite

01-20-2012 @ 8:20pm
in reply to: thevanished

Did you just say that it's ok to destroy a child in case of rape or incest?


 


I don't understand the -5 likes when the question is a legitimate question that hasn't been answered yet.