By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

SamuelRSmith on 17 May 2009
Kasz216 said:
Oh... and why they cover in the article too...

More republicans have moved over to Pro-Life by a large number.

Possibly threatened by the Obama presidency and what they see as rising socialism.

 

 Wow, that is an incredibly shallow basis in which to decide something as ethical and personal as abortion.

In the UK, at least, abortion is not a party-based issue, hence why Abortion bills are aways free-votes.



Around the Network
luinil on 17 May 2009

Here is the quote that you should read about this.

Bottom Line

With the first pro-choice president in eight years already making changes to the nation's policies on funding abortion overseas, expressing his support for the Freedom of Choice Act, and moving toward rescinding federal job protections for medical workers who refuse to participate in abortion procedures, Americans -- and, in particular, Republicans -- seem to be taking a step back from the pro-choice position. However, the retreat is evident among political moderates as well as conservatives.

It is possible that, through his abortion policies, Obama has pushed the public's understanding of what it means to be "pro-choice" slightly to the left, politically. While Democrats may support that, as they generally support everything Obama is doing as president, it may be driving others in the opposite direction.



Luinil - Marisa (FE:SS). She's calm, collected, and really likes swords. (Courtesy of Words of Wisdom)
Tag: luinil - "Liberalism is a mental disorder." - Thanks fkusumot!
Kasz216 on 17 May 2009
SamuelRSmith said:
Kasz216 said:
Oh... and why they cover in the article too...

More republicans have moved over to Pro-Life by a large number.

Possibly threatened by the Obama presidency and what they see as rising socialism.

 

 Wow, that is an incredibly shallow basis in which to decide something as ethical and personal as abortion.

In the UK, at least, abortion is not a party-based issue, hence why Abortion bills are aways free-votes.

I don't think it's that shallow of an opinion.

If someone who held somewhat moderate views kept saying to their more extreme freinds "Oh this guy is ok... he's not really going to do all that crazy stuff your talking about."

Then that guy did do that stuff.... or at least it appeared that way to those people.

Well maybe your more likely to listen to your more extreme friends... because who knows what the other guy is capable of.

 



MontanaHatchet on 17 May 2009
iclim4 said:
MontanaHatchet said:
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.

Calm down there Montana. No need to be hostile or to start name calling.
What happened to the days where VGC prided itself for being civil?
"You misinterpreted what I said, what I was trying to convey was..."

And I'm not using the "He she could have been" argument, I'm saying once the kid has reached conception(situational) give that kid a shot. (My beliefs lies closer to Vagabound's) instead of snuffing him out because I don't want to bear the responsibility or because we have enough kids in the world.
Color me naive but I would rather shoot straight to the root which is conception itself rather than go for an often selfish remedy which is abortion.

MontanaHatchet said:
Trust me, this planet has plenty of kids already. 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?

MontanaHatchet said:
 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.

Sounds like they don't know where to go. They think they're getting over populated and can't feed everyone, but then they don't want to diminish their work force.
Aborting kids is already "Sacrificing" their might:
"I would rather shoot straight to the root which is conception itself rather than go for an often selfish remedy which is abortion."

blegs1992 said:
I'm not saying ignorance was a proper excuse for getting pregnant and aborting a child.  I was saying that ignorance is not a good enough reason to punish her with a child to raise.

Sure it's not a good enough reason to punish her with raising a kid, a lot of things happen to people who don't deserve it. 
Let's say for example my parents told me not to play with the electric socket, as a curious kid I disobeyed them and electricuted myself and became paralized. Was it my fault? Yes. Did I deserve to be paralyzed for the rest of my life? No. Take that person in my other analogy, he didn't deserve to get HIV either. It happened, and there is no "reset" button. In the case of abortion, there is, but at a cost. You could either take responsibility to what you have done, or past it on to someone else.

Also, don't look too far into my analogies because pregnancy is not some life taking, life altering disease, and no one else suffers for you when you take medication or do therapies.

Calling someone a "jerk" does fit under the definition of name calling, but it's the least offensive form of it and I don't see how you can take such great offense from it. And don't bring up what Vgchartz used to be. The site is no less civil than it was a year or two ago, because we've always had the same types of people we have now (probably not as many spambots though).

If you're not saying what I thought you were saying, what's the point? Why doesn't every anti-abortion person sponsor a child in a third world country so that kid has a chance at life too? You claim that abortions are often for selfish reasons, but what about the people against abortion? How many of them care about the people holding the fetus inside of them? What about all the men against abortion who could never become pregnant even if they wanted to be?

Overpopulation is different than having too many kids. Take China, for example. Their birth rate was 153rd of all the countries in the world in 2008 (source), but there is no question that they are overpopulated right now. Aborting kids isn't the same as having less kids. If a law stated you could have no more than 2 kids, than that would be the limit and you couldn't have any more. However, if there was no law but abortion existed, someone could conceive 15 kids, abort 10, and still be left with 5 kids (well above the replacement rate). By the way, your quote shouldn't be repeated because it's not like it's somehow clever or intuitive. I don't want to argue about conception because frankly, it doesn't interest me that there's a slight possibility than someone's condom broke against all odds. Very boring stuff.

 



 

 

iclim4 on 17 May 2009
MontanaHatchet said:

Calling someone a "jerk" does fit under the definition of name calling, but it's the least offensive form of it and I don't see how you can take such great offense from it. And don't bring up what Vgchartz used to be. The site is no less civil than it was a year or two ago, because we've always had the same types of people we have now (probably not as many spambots though).

If you're not saying what I thought you were saying, what's the point? Why doesn't every anti-abortion person sponsor a child in a third world country so that kid has a chance at life too? You claim that abortions are often for selfish reasons, but what about the people against abortion? How many of them care about the people holding the fetus inside of them? What about all the men against abortion who could never become pregnant even if they wanted to be?

Overpopulation is different than having too many kids. Take China, for example. Their birth rate was 153rd of all the countries in the world in 2008 (source), but there is no question that they are overpopulated right now. Aborting kids isn't the same as having less kids. If a law stated you could have no more than 2 kids, than that would be the limit and you couldn't have any more. However, if there was no law but abortion existed, someone could conceive 15 kids, abort 10, and still be left with 5 kids (well above the replacement rate). By the way, your quote shouldn't be repeated because it's not like it's somehow clever or intuitive. I don't want to argue about conception because frankly, it doesn't interest me that there's a slight possibility than someone's condom broke against all odds. Very boring stuff.

Dude, calling someone a jerk when you barely even know him is not a proper way to start a discussion with that person.
I mean c'mon man as a well known (arguably respected) member/mod here, is name calling at your first reply appropriate?
I remember talking to you several months back- year and you weren't this hostile. I also remember you( and a lot of members including me) being prideful about VGC's community and how it can discuss touchy topics in a civil manner, which is why I brought it up now.

Jerk: Slang. a contemptibly naive, fatuous, foolish, or inconsequential person. Source

And I'm not representing the people who are against abortions.
Honestly though, I could never see myself doing it.

2nd paragraph.
When a woman have sex and becomes pregnant, it is her responsibility because her actions lead to that outcome.
I would assume anti abortionists want that woman to take responsibility by giving birth to the child and not aborting it.

And that kid in a third world country already has a chance at life.
I've lived in a third world country most of my life, don't be ethnocentric and think that they're some helpless people that can't survive on their own and needs your "saving". Most of them will feel the love of their parents, most of them will live their childhood enjoying the simple things in life, most of them will work hard just to eat. Some of them will unfortunately die, but that is life, you can't save everyone, but that doesn't mean that we should abort children just because of it.
One can even argue why send money to a different country when some people here in the US is starving?

And your example of that family having 5 kids and aborting 10 just shows how irresponsible they are.
If they didn't want anymore why not get a vasctomy, it's cheap, quick, not very painful and reversible.
Abortion is their quick fix and encourages them to be more irresponsible.

And the only reason that I repeated that quote was because that topic required that same answer so I just copy pasted it.
Weird how you would instantly jump to that conclusion...




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

Around the Network
akuma587 on 17 May 2009

So...why isn't the government telling people they can't have abortions not socialist? It is the government telling you how to run your life. Isn't that what conservatives are supposed to be against?



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

MontanaHatchet on 17 May 2009
iclim4 said:
MontanaHatchet said:

Calling someone a "jerk" does fit under the definition of name calling, but it's the least offensive form of it and I don't see how you can take such great offense from it. And don't bring up what Vgchartz used to be. The site is no less civil than it was a year or two ago, because we've always had the same types of people we have now (probably not as many spambots though).

If you're not saying what I thought you were saying, what's the point? Why doesn't every anti-abortion person sponsor a child in a third world country so that kid has a chance at life too? You claim that abortions are often for selfish reasons, but what about the people against abortion? How many of them care about the people holding the fetus inside of them? What about all the men against abortion who could never become pregnant even if they wanted to be?

Overpopulation is different than having too many kids. Take China, for example. Their birth rate was 153rd of all the countries in the world in 2008 (source), but there is no question that they are overpopulated right now. Aborting kids isn't the same as having less kids. If a law stated you could have no more than 2 kids, than that would be the limit and you couldn't have any more. However, if there was no law but abortion existed, someone could conceive 15 kids, abort 10, and still be left with 5 kids (well above the replacement rate). By the way, your quote shouldn't be repeated because it's not like it's somehow clever or intuitive. I don't want to argue about conception because frankly, it doesn't interest me that there's a slight possibility than someone's condom broke against all odds. Very boring stuff.

Dude, calling someone a jerk when you barely even know him is not a proper way to start a discussion with that person.
I mean c'mon man as a well known (arguably respected) member/mod here, is name calling at your first reply appropriate?
I remember talking to you several months back- year and you weren't this hostile. I also remember you( and a lot of members including me) being prideful about VGC's community and how it can discuss touchy topics in a civil manner, which is why I brought it up now.

Jerk: Slang. a contemptibly naive, fatuous, foolish, or inconsequential person. Source

And I'm not representing the people who are against abortions.
Honestly though, I could never see myself doing it.

2nd paragraph.
When a woman have sex and becomes pregnant, it is her responsibility because her actions lead to that outcome.
I would assume anti abortionists want that woman to take responsibility by giving birth to the child and not aborting it.

And that kid in a third world country already has a chance at life.
I've lived in a third world country most of my life, don't be ethnocentric and think that they're some helpless people that can't survive on their own and needs your "saving". Most of them will feel the love of their parents, most of them will live their childhood enjoying the simple things in life, most of them will work hard just to eat. Some of them will unfortunately die, but that is life, you can't save everyone, but that doesn't mean that we should abort children just because of it.
One can even argue why send money to a different country when some people here in the US is starving?

And your example of that family having 5 kids and aborting 10 just shows how irresponsible they are.
If they didn't want anymore why not get a vasctomy, it's cheap, quick, not very painful and reversible.
Abortion is their quick fix and encourages them to be more irresponsible.

And the only reason that I repeated that quote was because that topic required that same answer so I just copy pasted it.
Weird how you would instantly jump to that conclusion...

I called you a jerk because you misinterpreted what I said. I don't have to know you all that well to see that. As for the member/mod thing, I'm charmed at the thought but I'm not a mod. But well respected? Well...that's a compliment if I've ever heard one! Thank you for that. My hostility changes through the days, weeks, and months. A couple months to a year ago, I had a lot less going on. Now my life is more busy, I've got less time for Vgchartz and debating, and I tend to be aggressive in my arguments so I can end 'em more quickly. I am proud of the community for the most part, although there are some members I miss, and I don't think we've had some good new members for a while.

I'm not arguing about responsiblity at all. There are a bunch of different outcomes that can lead to pregnancy (consensual sex, rape, aliens, demons), so I don't worry about the possibilities. As for kids in third world countries, I'm not being ethnocentric and saying they're helpless. Apparently I should have emphasized really, really third world. There's a difference between a third world country where people get by and one where there's absolutely no food whatsoever and people starve to death all the time (perhaps I should have emphasized the latter). And your line of "you can't save everyone" kind of reinforces my view. The line about the family having a bunch of kids isn't to show irresponsiblity, it was just to show the difference between overpopulation and overbirth. As for vasectomies, I wish more people would get them but I guess it's not an appealing option to most people (especially if you're an 18 year old high school kid trying to score).

 



 

 

vlad321 on 17 May 2009

Saw this thread coming 2 days ago when I read the article about these stats.

Frankly I saw a guy put it best. You are not "pro-life" unless you are also against all kinds of torture, capital punishment, standing in line to help people with AIDS in Africa, against freedom to bear arms, etc. What you are is anti-sex and promiscuity and that's it. I frankly find it appalling just how hypocritical these "anti-sex" people are. It's fine to be hurting human life, as long as it won't promote having sex!

On another point, most anti-sex people are heavy conservatives and don't want the government to have ANY power and to just let people live. Telling what a person can do with their body is by FAR the WORST thing a government can do. Please, take 95% of my income in taxes, take my guns, control the media, whatever. Just don't fucking tell me what to do with my body. It's just sad how hypocritical people are.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

akuma587 on 17 May 2009
vlad321 said:
Saw this thread coming 2 days ago when I read the article about these stats.

Frankly I saw a guy put it best. You are not "pro-life" unless you are also against all kinds of torture, capital punishment, standing in line to help people with AIDS in Africa, against freedom to bear arms, etc. What you are is anti-sex and promiscuity and that's it. I frankly find it appalling just how hypocritical these "anti-sex" people are. It's fine to be hurting human life, as long as it won't promote having sex!

On another point, most anti-sex people are heavy conservatives and don't want the government to have ANY power and to just let people live. Telling what a person can do with their body is by FAR the WORST thing a government can do. Please, take 95% of my income in taxes, take my guns, control the media, whatever. Just don't fucking tell me what to do with my body. It's just sad how hypocritical people are.

Someone applaud this man!

You also aren't pro-life unless you are actively involved in volunteer organizations, adopt unwanted children, donate money to starving children, etc.

Pro-life people love to say that life begins at conception.  Apparently they stop caring about your life once you are out of the womb.  That is the ultimate hypocrisy of most pro-life people (although there are plenty who actually do many of the things listed above, and I applaud them for doing so).

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

HappySqurriel on 17 May 2009
akuma587 said:
vlad321 said:
Saw this thread coming 2 days ago when I read the article about these stats.

Frankly I saw a guy put it best. You are not "pro-life" unless you are also against all kinds of torture, capital punishment, standing in line to help people with AIDS in Africa, against freedom to bear arms, etc. What you are is anti-sex and promiscuity and that's it. I frankly find it appalling just how hypocritical these "anti-sex" people are. It's fine to be hurting human life, as long as it won't promote having sex!

On another point, most anti-sex people are heavy conservatives and don't want the government to have ANY power and to just let people live. Telling what a person can do with their body is by FAR the WORST thing a government can do. Please, take 95% of my income in taxes, take my guns, control the media, whatever. Just don't fucking tell me what to do with my body. It's just sad how hypocritical people are.

And unless you are actively involved in volunteer organizations, adopt unwanted children, donate money to starving children, etc.

Pro-life people love to say that life begins at conception. Apparently they stop caring about your life once you are out of the womb. That is the ultimate hypocrisy of most pro-life people (although there are plenty who actually do many of the things listed above, and I applaud them for doing so).

 

 

That's about as fair as saying that Pro-Choice people tend to be all about the rights of minorities, but are completely willing to support a massive genocide of them as long as it only involves abortions and not messy guns ...