More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time
gallup.com
gallup.com
I suspect that people's answers to these questions will be pretty consistent from year to year, and what's really changing is the salience of the different cases; all other factors being equal, if you hear a lot about women having what you consider inappropriate abortions, then you will be more likely to label yourself "pro-life", but if you hear a lot about women being prevented from having what you consider appropriate abortions, then you will be more likely to label yourself "pro-choice".
In general, it seems like people on the pro-life side are more likely to draw a strict boundary, whereas people on the pro-choice side are more likely to compromise. e.g. I can imagine someone saying "I'm in favor of a woman's right to choose -- but not if her choice means harming a fetus that can experience pain." I can't imagine a pro-lifer saying "Abortion means murdering a helpless infant. So before you do it, you better be damn sure you intended to check the expiration date on those condoms, but, like, totally forgot."
Actually, it's not. That's just what many pro-choice people tell themselves to feel superior to "those people" and to avoid thinking about hard questions.
I'm one of the people who supposedly don't exist - I'm pro-abortion. However, I find the pro-life people to be generally more rational, thoughtful, and not nearly as petty and nasty. Yup, the pro-life people tend to be better people.
In other news, the bumper sticker/statement "mean people suck" is often self-applied by mean people.
Actually, no.
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/03/21/why-its-dif...
While many pro-life people mean well, let's look at the linked article and see how their policies really add up.
Also, I'm with you: I'm pro-abortion.
My opposition to abortion is much more practical and self-serving in nature than punishment-based. If my mom had chosen abortion (which, given her circumstances, would have been likely) I wouldn't be around today.
I think you do a disservice when you paint the other side of a debate with a broad brush. It's easy to assign some simple rationale to your opponent and then make fun of them. It's called a straw man argument.
Life is more complicated than that.
(By the way, I'm pro-choice. I just vehemently think abortion is immoral murder which a woman should have a right to do if she wants)
I'm quoting you because I'm with you, in the sense that I would prefer to avoid abortion, would like to reduce the number of abortions in this country, but believe its entirely a woman's right to choose, and it should not be stigmatized or deamonized as it is in this country.
Also, please check out this link, where its much better argued then it could be by my, that pro-life policies make more sense at punishing women for sex, than they do at actually reducing the abortion rate:
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/03/21/why-its-dif...
I have no problem with demonizing the procedure or the women involved. People have a right to do immoral things in this country. I would never take away their freedom to do so simply because they are immoral. But I also have a right to shout from the rooftops at how evil and twisted a practice it is.
The law is not about right and wrong. It's about the minimum number of rules we need to get along with each other. Simply because I think it should be legal and I would fight to the death to support it doesn't mean that I agree with it or promote it. In fact, quite the opposite.
Logically, then, people must be hearing about more women having "inappropriate" abortions than "appropriate" abortions?
It's a basic demographic fact that folks have been talking about for 20 years: there is a strong correlation between political values and average family size. Red state folks have slightly more kids, and they have them younger (which means that you pack more generations in per unit time).
If a composite blue state person has 0.9 kids per generation, and has 3 generations per century, then you get 0.9 ^ 3 = .729 blue staters in the fourth generation for every 1 in the first.
If a composite red state person has 1.1 kids per generation, and has 4 generations per century, then you get 1.1 ^ 4 = 1.46 red staters in the fourth generation for every 1 in the first.
Modest changes in growth rates can be HUGE.
It's always dangerous to extrapolate out 100 years based on 15 or 20 years of data, but the last 20 years HAVE played out much as some have predicted.
I'd also add that the proliferation of low cost ultrasound, which has let people see prenatal ( babies / fetuses ) has had a demonstrable effect on abortion rates. This is true even despite the fact that crusading moralist / Client #6 Elliot Spitzer tried to (and mostly succeeded in) banning ultrasound for merely curious pregnant women.
And your model of different reproductive rates for blue-state vs. red-state people assumes that children have the same values as their parents. I know quite a few folks who were raised in red states and fled them.
Anecdote != data.
There are "defections" in both directions.
Even if kids have the same values as their parents 51% of the time, you'll see the effect.
If conservative parents have been having more children than liberal parents for the past few decades, then why hasn't the voting population become more conservative since Reagan was president?
((birth rate of pro-life families) * (rate of (children of pro-life families) that are pro-life)) vs. ((birth rate of pro-choice families) * (rate of (children of pro-choice families) that are pro-choice))
Is this a joke? We just finished one of the most pronounced conservative swings in American history, with all 3 branches of federal government and many local governments all under Republican control. How much more conservative did it have to get to convince you?
The Republicans really had to do massive amounts of damage to get Obama elected and break the trend. His election does not, in and of itself, prove that the U.S. has decisively shifted away from conservatism. If he is perceived to have some success, it might, but it is still to early to say for sure.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/is-public-opinion-cha...
Percent of hispanics, Mormons, college educated, third-party-voting, etc.
Especially given that political and social changes are often influenced by technology (birth control pill -> sexual revolution ; ultrasound -> increase in rates of pro-life ; online video -> anti-police-corruption; etc.).