Quantcast
Gallup: More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time

Forums - General Discussion - Gallup: More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time

I find it weird that such a development could come up now. Maybe Gallup is not doing very good sampling... not good, though. The data shows that the country is regressing to an "all women should be at home" ideal.

Anyway, I believe that the woman should be able to have a say on everything that goes on with HER body in all circumstances. Say she was having protected sex and the condom breaks, is that a sufficient reason to burden her with a child?

I also believe the adoption argument is not OK, either. We should not be introducing so many new people to the world when not all the world's mouths are fed.



Around the Network

I'm betting there's something weird with this poll. Things just don't shift that much in a year.

As somebody else already said, it is far better to look at more specific questions- say about acceptable circumstances.

As for me, I'm pro-choice. A fetus is not equal to a human life. There's a point where it should be cut off- I'd say just leave practice it in the first 2 trimesters unless there's a very late health complication that demands it in the final weeks.




@ikilledkenny: I already have shown that it can shift that much in a year. 96-97 was a 9 point jump.

@blegs1992: I fail to see how wanting to protect of a innocent unborn baby is saying "all women should be at home." And your arguments have already been answered, but to reiterate....

You have a choice, engage in a risky behavior with potentially unwanted consequences (a child), or not to engage in it. Why not use double protection? How about a morning after pill in some cases? Or perhaps the oldest form of birth control?

I don't know what a child may grow up to be, but aborting them before we find out is a risky proposition. You might have just killed the next great artist of this century. There are plenty of resources to feed and clothe and house most or even everyone in this world. Sadly there are other political problems with getting that done, like warlords and other such things.



Rath said:
I'm fine for people to go ahead and base their morals on the bible, and yes that would imply that life begins at conception and that abortion is wrong. However when they try and force their beliefs on everyone (ie. make abortion illegal) I have a problem.

The question 'when does human life begin?' isn't easily answered, a very large segment of the population believes it begins part way through the pregnancy, another very large part believes it begins at the start of the pregnancy.

The pro-choicers aren't forcing the people who believe life begins at conception to have abortions, so I don't see why those people should force people who believes human life begins later not to have abortions.

Wouldn't you stop a murderer or rapist from committing their crimes, despite whatever they believe, though? Furthermore, in all these cases (murder, rape, abortion), for the opposers of such acts, there are more than 2 parties involved (it's not just the murderer and the opposer, it's also the potential victim).  So, for the opposer, if he decides not to force his beliefs on someone, then, according to his beliefs, he is allowing that someone to force their beliefs on someone else.

 



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
luinil said:
@ikilledkenny: I already have shown that it can shift that much in a year. 96-97 was a 9 point jump.

@blegs1992: I fail to see how wanting to protect of a innocent unborn baby is saying "all women should be at home." And your arguments have already been answered, but to reiterate....

You have a choice, engage in a risky behavior with potentially unwanted consequences (a child), or not to engage in it. Why not use double protection? How about a morning after pill in some cases? Or perhaps the oldest form of birth control?

I don't know what a child may grow up to be, but aborting them before we find out is a risky proposition. You might have just killed the next great artist of this century. There are plenty of resources to feed and clothe and house most or even everyone in this world. Sadly there are other political problems with getting that done, like warlords and other such things.

Alright, I hate this argument so much. Do you really think we need to have more kids to find the great artist of the century, or the one who will cure cancer? Trust me, this planet has plenty of kids already. If we really cared about children, the U.S. in particular would focus more money on education and less on the military, and third world governments would put money into agriculture and education instead of keeping themselves in power. What about the kid that's starving in a third world country, do you think he could have been the great artist of the century? For all we know, if he had been born in the right place at the right time, he could have been. All I'm saying is that the people on earth right now have plenty of potential, and a fetus isn't any more promising than any kid already born.

 



 

 

Around the Network
luinil said:

You have a choice, engage in a risky behavior with potentially unwanted consequences (a child), or not to engage in it. Why not use double protection? How about a morning after pill in some cases? Or perhaps the oldest form of birth control?

At the time of the choice, maybe she assumes she is 100% sure she will not get pregnant if a condom is used or she turns to the morning after pill, so to her there is no risk.  First, no form of protection is proven to work 100% of the time, even if he withdraws.  So if birth control just doesn't work the way it should, is it right to punish her by giving her a child to raise for something she didn't have control?  Now we're going into whether or not she should just be abstinent:  Now it must only be allowed if you want to have a child?  I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that... Only mothers that want to raise a child should engage in sexual behavior.  That's the "Republican Motherhood" idea of "women should stay at home with the kids" that was all over the country before the 1940's and 50's.

 



Between the massive imbalance in the number of boys and gilrs born in China/India, the ruling in sweeden that gender-based abortion was legal, and the growing ability for people to identify elements about a child in the womb is (probably) changing how people see abortion ... These abortions are not being carried out by people who can't afford to have a child, they are being carried out by people who want to ensure that they get the perfect baby and are leaving nothing to chance.

Imagine (for a moment) how the strongest supporters of abortion rights would react if scientists discover a way to determing whether a child is gay while they are in the womb (or potentially that the child has a higher probability of being gay), and tolerant middle and upper class women choose to go and have the child aborted because they just don't want to have a gay child.

 

The first wave of eugenics and genetic engineering was the use of genocide to kill off the undesireable people in society, it is quite possible that the second wave of eugenics and genetic engineering will be the use of abortion to prevent the birth of the undesireable people in society, and the final wave will be the manipulation of the genetic code of man to eliminate the undesireable traits from people in society.



blegs1992 said:
luinil said:

You have a choice, engage in a risky behavior with potentially unwanted consequences (a child), or not to engage in it. Why not use double protection? How about a morning after pill in some cases? Or perhaps the oldest form of birth control?

At the time of the choice, maybe she assumes she is 100% sure she will not get pregnant if a condom is used or she turns to the morning after pill, so to her there is no risk. First, no form of protection is proven to work 100% of the time, even if he withdraws. So if birth control just doesn't work the way it should, is it right to punish her by giving her a child to raise for something she didn't have control? Now we're going into whether or not she should just be abstinent: Now it must only be allowed if you want to have a child? I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that... Only mothers that want to raise a child should engage in sexual behavior. That's the "Republican Motherhood" idea of "women should stay at home with the kids" that was all over the country before the 1940's and 50's.

 

Have you ever heard of adoption?

There are 4 year waiting list for people to adopt a baby in most of the western world, and as more and more countries allow for homosexual adoption this could easily become a 6 or 8 year waiting list.

Edit: As for the the comments "Only mothers that want to raise a child should engage in sexual behavior" the true belief that most people would agree with is that only people who are in a position in their life where they can accept the risks associated with sexual behavior should engage in sexual behavior.



blegs1992 said:
At the time of the choice, maybe she assumes she is 100% sure she will not get pregnant if a condom is used or she turns to the morning after pill, so to her there is no risk.  First, no form of protection is proven to work 100% of the time, even if he withdraws.  So if birth control just doesn't work the way it should, is it right to punish her by giving her a child to raise for something she didn't have control?  Now we're going into whether or not she should just be abstinent:  Now it must only be allowed if you want to have a child?  I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that... Only mothers that want to raise a child should engage in sexual behavior.  That's the "Republican Motherhood" idea of "women should stay at home with the kids" that was all over the country before the 1940's and 50's.

Knowledge is important, if you want to engage in a potentially life altering act you have to know the risks involved and not just "assume" you're 100% safe even though you're really not. Ignorance really isn't a proper excuse.

Here's an analogy:
Let's say I want to fuck my girlfriend with the HIV virus to show her how much I love her.
I "assume" a condom would protect me from being infected by that virus (just like people assume condoms will protect them from becoming pregnant).
I was told that condoms may protect me from STD's right?
A month later I get symptoms of HIV acute retroviral syndrome.

I wore a condom right? But I have no one else to blame but me for getting HIV, because I chose to do an act which could potentially give me that consequence. ( of course no one really deserves this disease).

@Montana
luin's not proposing people keep on procreating, she was just pointing out that not giving that kid a chance for life wouldn't give him the chance to reach or chase after his potential. You see, to her life starts at conception, and you're suggesting to her you want to kill that child because we have enough in this world? Why don't we just slow down in making them instead of killing them then. That sounds like a more logical approach.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                         iclim4 - "The Friends Thread changed my life!" (Pervert Alert!)                                            Tags? 

@Montana
luin's not proposing people keep on procreating, she was just pointing out that not giving that kid a chance for life wouldn't give him the chance to reach or chase after his potential. You see, to her life starts at conception, and you're suggesting to her you want to kill that child because we have enough in this world? Why don't we just slow down in making them instead of killing them then. That sounds like a more logical approach.

Thanks for misinterpreting what I said. It's so easy to do when you disagree with someone, but it also makes you a jerk. So don't do it. I was just pointing out the obvious, which is that millions if not billions of kids will never see their potential for reasons other than being aborted. Hitler's mother considered having an abortion, but she decided against it. Don't you think the world would have been a good bit deal better off if Hitler never saw his potential? A potential child could be a life-saving doctor or a tyrannical dictator. I don't think "he or she could have been" is a very good argument for abortion at all.

By the way, no one's going to slow down their kid production. A young work force is necessary for a strong and healthy economy, and no nation is going to sacrifice their might for the good of humanity.