EXACTLY! This is no longer rocket science. Look at the damn picture!
Posted on 05/18/2009 6:36:08 AM PDT by presidio9
The abortion debate is a shape shifter, its contours twisted by politics, culture, timing and the very language pollsters use when they ask people how they feel. So when the folks at Gallup announced that for the first time more Americans are pro-life than pro-choice, there are all kinds of ways to misunderstand what that means.
First and foremost are the labels, which cloud the issue by oversimplifying it — that's why the advocates picked them. Most people are neither pro-choice nor pro-life, but both; we cherish life, we value choice, and we trade them off with great reluctance. Good luck explaining that to someone politely requesting a binary answer over the phone. (Read "The Grass-Roots Abortion War.")
But if we place any stock at all in those labels, something dramatic has happened. In 1995, when Gallup started asking the question, the split was 56-33 in favor of abortion rights. Now the lines have crossed, and 51% call themselves pro-life while only 42% say pro-choice. It's a shift that stretches past personal convictions and into legal constraints. For 35 years, a majority of Americans have wanted abortion to be, essentially, legal with limits. But the movement towards greater restraint is clear. In the mid 90s, when pro-choice forces were especially dominant, only 12% believed abortion was always wrong: that number has nearly doubled. At either extreme, slightly more people now believe abortion should be illegal under all circumstances (23%) than legal under all circumstances (22%). (See a TIME graphic on the growth of crisis pregnancy centers.)
So what's changed? Gallup attributes the new numbers to Republicans purifying their views: 70% now call themselves pro-life, up 10 points in a year. But that's to be expected; when fewer people call themselves Republican,
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
While I’m glad that polls show Americans favor life, it is sad when the value of life is weighed against the value of choice. A society that can’t see the imbalance of that debate is lost.
The sentence above seems rather strange the way it jumps to first person plural to tell us what “we” believe.
I guess the stinking vermin at Notre Dame did not get the memo about baby killing. Stupid sports school.
Like Time magazine sez, most people are neither pro-choice nor pro-life, but both;
we cherish life,
we value convenience and comfort,
and we use our technology to kill the unborn with great reluctance
so that we don’t have to kill them later, as infants, because that would be murder.
It simple, we can now see 3D images of babies after just a couple month. The tissue mass argument has been proven to be false.
he wants to “tamp down some of the anger” around the abortion debate.
If he really wanted to tamp down some of the anger, he could have graciously declined the invitation to attend the Notre Dame commencement.
Late term abortion IS torture. Torture visited upon thousands of innocents every year, ....rather than 3 (three) terrorists over five years.
There must be a reason why the press is not demanding photos..........or drawing diagrams of the procedure.
....I wonder what it could be?
Thank you for the
very helpful translation
from the author’s orwellian newspeak
into plain langauge.
Probably because Cheney is not defending it, so it can’t be used as a cudgel to bash Bush and the Republicans with.
(only partly sarcastic alert)
Never ever accept a Liberals premise as the basis for a discussion. The premise itself is always colored in their direction and you cannot do anything but lose to their position.
It could be satan.
And the fact
that many/most
in “the press” (and most “liberals”)
have been personally involved
in causing and/or supporting
the abortion-murder of a baby,
and so they very
defensively and irrationally
suppress the objective facts
(such as clinical photos and videos)
about the abortion-murder
of millions
of tiny helpless innocent
babies
each year
in the USA.
Since 1973
abortion-murder
has been
the premiere
inconvenient truth
that causes so many
millions of
guilt-ridden
adults
to whistle past
al of the
bloody, cold
butcher-shop/graveyards.
Happily,
the truth
- and these millions of bodies -
cannot remain buried
indefinitely.
Time Magazines’ explanation for the polling results—stupid, ignorant Americans responding incorrectly to a question they simply aren’t sophisticated enough to understand. Remarkable how much “dumber” the public has become over the past decade or two, huh? Ah, the left. Always a champion of free speech, freedom of thought and the misuse they are put to by the mouth-breathing general public.
obama is pro-baby murder. he is no different than hilter in that regard. obama should meet the same end as hitler and soon, 100’s killed daily. obama is truely evil. it is not beyond anyones paygrade to see that. obama is a baby killer. he deserves what he gives babies.actually he deserves worse. he is a shameful lieing murdering SOB.
EXACTLY! This is no longer rocket science. Look at the damn picture!
Actually, if SCOTUS granted me the right not to pay my taxes whenever I found them iconvenient, I would probably value that right. But not paying taxes from a moral standpoint is only irresponsible. Murder is on a much higher moral order of magnitude (the highest, as it were).
Meanwhile, of course we cherish life. Even mentioning that fact is nothing more than an idiotic moral platitude. If life begins at conception, then all room for debate is lost. If the life aborted is anything less than human, then who cares? Whenever I hear a liberal saying he or she wants abortion "safe, rare, and legal," I'm dying to know "whay rare?"
“...of course we cherish life. Even mentioning that fact is nothing more than an idiotic moral platitude...”
Once again ole presidio9 delivers a great economy-of-words argument.
This “shift” is the fruit of bold witness for the truth.
Folks need to give a whole lot of thought to who has been providing that bold witness, without compromise, over the long haul.
Because the namby-pamby compromisers have done nothing to move the hearts and minds of the American people. Except in the direction of more killing.
The issue is black and white.
The pro-life label is appropriate for those who reject abortion for any reason: such people (the leaders of the movement) truly advocate FOR saving every single innocent life threatened by those wishing to directly and deliberately kill such innocents, regardless of the justification the killers think they have. Pro-lifers (literally “for life”) advocate for the societal acknowledgment that humans in the womb are persons who have the right to life without fear of being killed intentionally, just as much as humans outside the womb at any stage of life enjoy that right until they die. The pro-life label is simple because the pro-life position is simple and widely understood as a consistently reasoned and time-tested stance.
The pro-choice label is so generic as to be meaningless. What choice is being advocated? What choice are they “for”? It is also anything but black and white: it is rare to speak to a pro-choice advocate who who actually thinks that a woman should be able to choose to kill her 9-month old unborn fetus without justification- but to be consistent, a pro-choice stance would have to honor such a mother’s choice to kill that baby.
The public is drifting to embrace the purity of the absolute and extreme pro-life position (simply: don’t kill innocent babes in the womb for any reason), and rejecting the callousness of the bloody “pro-choice” extreme (a woman has an absolute right to kill the babe in her womb at any stage for any reason without the need to offer any justification).
The integrity of the pro-lifers - despite their “extreme” absolutist stance that the lives of even the most inconvenient and largely invisible persons must be defended - is attractive to those seeking truth and goodness. And even in the worst case scenario, the world ends up with another person (every person is a good simply because he exists).
The tap-dance of those who offer inconsistent justifications for killing their inconvenient offspring is appealing only in that if offers an illusion of power and an instant “fix” (to say nothing of the universally unappealing abosulutist view that abortion is always a valid choice no matter what the circumstances). Any such attractiveness lacks staying power, especially as those who have killed their babies grow to understand that being “pro-choice” is being pro-abortion, that abortion is murder, and that murdering your own child is actually quite harmful to one’s self-esteem and quality of life.
Shouldn’t you be attributing when you quote Maya Angelou? /sarc
It is an idiotic statement intended to deny that a person is being born.
We easily allow denial of humanity to exist so that some can be free to destroy it. Yet, that “being” existing in the woman’s body - is so important because it might provide miraculous cures for humans if only it could be used. Not as a baby - but for the selfish harvesting of already born “fetuses” (man).
Please, never let the left destroy how we see the truth. It does not matter how many times they say what is in a woman’s body is not a baby - it is. And, what is that thing that might be born early at 6 mos., 7, even 5? How can it be a baby then if it is not a baby inside other women at the same time who are still carrying it?
Such utter selfishness, depravity. In reality, a woman willing to kill her own unborn - is not worthy of being a mother having the joys of watching a precious being grow. After all, she considered it unimportant enough that she would deny it the chance at life (as she received from her own mother) and condemned it to never seeing life - but only nothingness.
Of course there are many justifications - but she had choice (more than women of other generations) and she used that choice. Now a baby has been created depending solely on her for its future life. And she ignores the fact that it is a baby entering the world and considers it only “something that she has the “right” to destroy”.
How happy that must make her. How utterly powerful to guard her body and say “no” to the son or daughter that is trying to grow.
And, if it is not a body while in the mother - then there is no need for embryonic stem cell harvesting - how can its cells create regrowth and repair if it is not a human body.
Why the need to use the cells all the while supporting a gross need to kill the “cells”? How could those “cells” be a human at 9 mos. but not a human at 6 mos, 4 mos, 3 mos.?
Do they believe that God miraculously turns those cells into a body at birth?
See how convoluted your thinking has to be to be a liberal?
I sure get tired of ignorance being allowed to have credibility.
But seriously: There are liberal fruitcakes picketing Leavenworth prison, the Virgina governor's office, and the office of the NFL commissioner to protest Michael Vick's release from incarceration for RICO charges, and his possible reinstatement into the NFL. Currently he is working in construction, earning $17 per hour. Don't get me wrong: I love dogs. I think Michael Vick deserved everything he got. I thought he was overrated as a quarterback. But it is instructive that liberals can summon up this degree of outrage for a dogkiller, and then vaguely refer to cherishing life if they really mean they want the right to destroy it because it is inconvenient to them personally. We can see what sort of planet these liberals on when they value a dog's life over one that it alive, is sometimes viable, has its own DNA (unique in human history), sex, heartbeat, and susceptibility to pain.
Several of those 50 million babies this country has aborted would have grown up to become great scientists. Some would have been doctors. Some would have been priests, rabbis and ministers. Many would have been teachers. A couple would have been world-class athletes without sadistic tendencies towards animals.
“...susceptibility to pain...”
We pro-lifers have had lots of gifts droped on us. One of them is Jennifer O’Neill. I had the most liberal of all HS English teachers but she thought the world of O’Neil’s beauty and I bet it bugs her that the star is now pro-life and even a persistent pro-life activist.
But what really bugs em is a logical discussion of infant pain during the abortion process. There is that famous quote from one of O’Neil’s contemporaries (in regreting her abortion) that she has always been haunted by the “doctor’s” words that the baby victim was “trying to get away”. When the “mass of dividing cells” becomses a human victim of torture the Left changes the subject.
It’s good to hear those percentages and my opinion won’t be popular here but I don’t think Roe v Wade will ever be overturned. It’s been too many years and I don’t think many women want to end up in shabby rooms getting abortions and they will get them. One was or the other. All it takes is a retired doctor with the equipment. If we can’t win the war we can at least win many of the battles. No child under 18 without parental consent . PERIOD!!!! No abortions allowed after 8 weeks. PERIOD!! NO late term abortions PERIOD! Make the morning after pill available. It would cut down the amount of abortions tremendously.
I know this isn’t in line with life begins at conception but I just don’t think it’s going to happen unless there is a was in this country and most of the liberals are gone. Also it’s not only liberals that get abortions. Sadly, I know some devout Christians and Conservatives that have had them.
This is one I don’t think we are going to win and may have to compromise on. I don’t like it, but it’s a fact. I hope I am wrong.
Several of those 50 million babies this country has aborted would have grown up to become great scientists. Some would have been doctors. Some would have been priests, rabbis and ministers. Many would have been teachers. A couple would have been world-class athletes without sadistic tendencies towards animals.
_______________
40 million may have been new ACORN members too.
In 1995, when Gallup started asking the question, the split was 56-33 in favor of abortion rights. Now the lines have crossed, and 51% call themselves pro-life while only 42% say pro-choice.Must be the Muzzies, eh? ;')
Americans have been polling increasingly pro-life for several years now, but they’re not voting that way. Not only have they voted to give Democrats nearly unprecedented power in Washington, but they regularly vote against state ballot initiatives to restrict abortion. We know that there are scores of politicians who like to proclaim their strong pro-life beliefs, then do absolutely nothing about it. If this is also true of the public in general, then these polling shifts are totally useless for pro-life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.