Posted on 01/25/2006 9:37:14 AM PST by summer
As the nation marks the 33rd anniversary of the landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade that established abortion rights across America, a slight majority believes abortion should be always be available, or should be available without government financing, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows.
The survey shows that 52% favor abortion, including 10% who saying they believe it should be available, but that the government should not pay for it.
Forty-three percent oppose abortion, though most of those believe there should be exceptions in the cases of rape, incest, or when the pregnancy posed a grave threat to the life of the mother. A total of 9% said they “always oppose” abortion.
Among women, 50% said they favored the availability of abortion in all cases, while another 8% said they favor its availability but do not want the government to pay for it. Thirty-eight percent of women said they opposed abortion outright, or with certain exceptions. Among men, 59% said they oppose abortion completely or with certain exceptions, while 35% said they favor it always. Another 12% said they favor it but do not want the government to pay for it.
“What’s striking to me is that the numbers were radically different ten years ago,” said John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International. “Ten years ago, maybe just seven or eight years ago, pro-choice forces were in the ascendancy and posted pro-choice numbers in the area of 65% to 68%.”
They still represent a majority, but just barely, the survey shows.
The Zogby survey highlights a dramatic partisan split on the question. While 74% of Democrats said they favor abortion the availability of in all circumstances, just 9% of Republicans feel the same way. And while 78% of Republicans oppose abortion either completely or with some exceptions, only 17% of Democrats agree.
Among independents, 45% said they always favor the right to an abortion.
Among Republicans, 77% said that “abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter,” while 13% disagreed with that statement. Among Democrats, 15% believe that abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter, and 70% disagreed.
The poll comes as the U.S. Senate is preparing to vote soon on the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Judge Alito, nominated last year by President Bush to take the seat now occupied by moderate Sandra Day O’Connor, is considered a conservative that could change the balance on the court on this issue and others.
The partisan divide over abortion is most dramatic when considering whether parents should be notified before a daughter’s abortion. While 88% of Republicans agree parents should know ahead of time, just 26% of Democrats agree. One in every two independents say parents should be told ahead of time.
The national split extends to the question about late-term abortion. One-third opposes late-term abortions except when the mother’s life is in danger; one-third opposes the procedure except when the overall health of the mother is at risk, and 20% said they opposed late-term abortions in all circumstances. Another 11% said they did not agree with any of those circumstances.
The Zogby Interactive survey was conducted Jan. 20-23, and included 5,640 interviews. The margin of error for the poll is +/-1.3 percentage points.
(1/23/2006)
The evil rats are in free-fall demographic decline, as they continue to murder millions of their babies. Of the 16 states with the lowest fertility rates (all far below the replacement rate of 2.1 children), all 16 Blue States went for Kerry.
In contrast, 25 of the 26 states with the highest fertility all went for Bush.
It was a valid reply you gave to Jack, but not really in the spirit of his question. Let's rephrase:
If an abortion is stopping a growing thing inside the uterus from growing, and if you stop something from growing, aren't you killing that something?
Most likely reply: Ice crystals can grow, do you "kill" ice crystals if you stop them from growing?
Reply to that reply: So do you deny what is in the uterus of a pregnant female is alive? (which is my question, to you)
Woo hoo! 3 now! On a roll today! :)
If it weren't alive, it wouldn't be growing.
I'm in! We are 4.
It's good news that the tide is turning. I believe the step-by-step approach of pointing out the absurdity of partial-birth abortion and allowing minors to get an abortion without consent have helped us chip away at overall support for abortion.
Considering all rape victims? Well, if 75-85% of them are committed to the baby's life then I would say at least that many would turn down a morning-after pill. Plus a few additional ones that would for faith and personal belief reasons, medical reasons, age, or believing they would not be at risk for pregnancy.
He said something had to be alive to be aborted. I was trying to illustrate that the term is applied in other contexts. And thank you for returning to the civility we had before that other (fortunately short) arrival and departure.
I'm really sorry for her friend. And it's a really cruel thing. But the child didn't ask to be conceived... it's not like it's her whole life, nobody says she has to raise it.
The thing is, there are millions of married women who use birth control pills to control family spacing and size. Mrs. Jane Suburb may find an actual abortion to be abhorrent and believe it's murder, but when pro-life groups tell her that her birth control pills are no better than abortion, such groups' message loses all credibility in her eyes.
In real life, I know many moderate women - some of whom are not remotely religious - who claim to be "pro-choice" solely because certain pro-life groups advocate getting rid of birth control pills as well. NARAL has done a fabulous job of exploiting it, too - lumping access to birth control in with access to abortion under the banner of "reproductive freedoms." Many women rationalize the pill as being responsible and effective way of PREVENTING the need for a surgical or medical abortion - not as being as bad as an abortion in and of itself.
In the grand scheme of things I'd much prefer a woman have a fertilized egg not implant instead of waiting and having her living, moving, fully-formed baby ripped out of her uterus a few months later. It's a difficult moral dilemma. On one hand, the birth control pill may prevent implantation in a minority of cases, but if it prevents true abortions, I believe birth control to be the lesser issue.
I believe the pro-life movement would do itself a disservice to attempt to regulate birth control. We should be focusing on eliminating elective surgical and medical abortions and in supporting women facing crisis pregnancies, not on demonizing couples who choose to use hormonal birth control.
Yay!
(I love bumping this thread, as it's wonderful news for our nation!)
I believe the pro-life movement would do itself a disservice to attempt to regulate birth control. We should be focusing on eliminating elective surgical and medical abortions and in supporting women facing crisis pregnancies, not on demonizing couples who choose to use hormonal birth control.
Speaking for myself, the issue of the "pill" is abortion. If a sucessfully fertilized egg is prevented from implanting, then it's the same as "ripping a fully formed baby out of the uterus". IMO.
There is all this grey talk from "Mrs. Jane Suburb" and her ilk, about being "against abortion", but most haven't really thought it through, especially when you prove to them the consequences of taking birth control pills. It's a medical fact that they can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, so, if Mrs. Jane Suburb believes that abortion is wrong, and that "life begins at conception", then she should be told that medical fact. If she truly believes what she says she does, then she'll accept it and change her viewpoint. If not, she's not rational and wouldn't be a help to the pro life movement anyway.
As a Catholic I don't support any birth control, but I'm not advocating the criminalization of all birth control here, nor would I say that the pro life movement should, for the reasons you stated. But birth control pills for women (or the patch, or the implant, or virtually anything other than the sponge) is far more than simple "birth control". It's a 1 in 100 shot of an actual abortion, no matter how one looks at it, if one does accept that "life begins at conception" as an axiom.
Great pics!
I especially like the one in the middle.
Thank you!
This is such GOOD news!
Thank you!
Great news it is! And you have to figure the numbers are even better than those reported, given that it's a Zogby poll.
Oh, that is so sweet. I know everything will go well for you. ;-)
This issue has a certain policy/legal matrix to it, that cuts the pie into smaller pieces, from which folks can mix and match. We have robe power vis a vis people power vis a vis the Constitution, fertilization of the egg versus non fertilization, sentience versus non sentience and how to measure it, and weigh it, viability versus non viability outside the womb, health of the mother versus life of the mother, what "health" of the mother means or should mean as an exception short of life threatening, and the procedure for ascertaining it, rape versus non rape, incest versus non incest, federalism versus Federalist, and who pays for what when vis a vis cross subsidization. Mix and match.
Did I miss any matrices?
Oh one other, "normal" babies versus "deformed/flawed/physically and mentally challenged" babies, per medical prognositications of same.
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.