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)
"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."
Well...It sounds like there's at least 9% of the people polled here, that understand the phrase, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL". I think it even made it to the commandment stage...
The mainstream is changing course. Many rivers do, over time.
Just goes to show that when the left gloats over a new found "constitutional right" .... and uses it in wretched excess (abortion on demand for any reason at any moment up until birth) .... moral revulsion rises.
For those who, whether for moral reasons or just responsible behavior, make sure to never be in a position where the 'morning after' pill or RU-486 would have any relevance to their lives other than as a political issue, I could see how it would be easy to not see a difference between the two (obviously I didn't.)
Since I tend to be very cynical, I wonder if demographics also have something to do with it. Abortion has been legal for, essentially, the entire reproductive lives of Boomers. Now that it's not a Boomer issue any more, Boomers might not be as likely to fight for something that doesn't affect them personally.
They are completely different drugs, and it really muddles the issue (IMHO) when people think they are the same thing.
What a totally assinine statement. I can only assume you are a religious bigot because "religious fundamentalist" as you call them disagree on what is good science and what isn't. As a person you would probably put into this group I can say that I have never hated science. In fact, in working with Crisis Pregnancy Centers I have helped fight for the right for women to see their ultrasounds at abortion mills. Most change their minds if they see the ultrasound. We also showed many scientific films on baby development and such.
The question I always ask is "if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy, then why not just induce labor?" That gets people off of the "right to control one's body" argument and into the "we need to get rid of these unwanted people" agrument. It's fairly easy to point out how barbaric that argument is.
Maybe, just maybe, people are beginning to understand - don't sleep with someone if you don't want a baby. Men should know this already - they are legally responsible, no questions asked, for their offspring.
Maybe the culture of life is winning . . .
As one who grew up at the time when NOW was emerging as a strong influence on young women, I know in my heart I would have had an abortion if pregnant and unnmarried during my college years. Many of my friends did. Some had multiple abortions. Luckily I never faced that decision.
It was selfishness. No more, no less. Self gratification. No one would admit that then, or maybe even now.
But now I have lived long enough and experienced enough that I realize you don't remain selfish and self centerd forever. You change. Priorities change.
I am sure my sorority sisters who made that choice 30 years ago now suffer for it. It is disturbing to see the extent the left goes to to try and silence efforts to advise or counsel this generation of young women, to consider the very long term consequences of decisons made today. And to get them to look at selfishness as a motive, and not cloak it in pretty terms such as "reproductive choice".
When I was 19 I sure never thought that several decades later I'd be standing out in front of a women's health clinic praying a rosary! LOL.
From what I remember (from my days in NYC) a LONG time ago), once in a great while they would show an ersatz "libertarian" streak of some kind.
Plus, it had all the movie schedules . . .
"The question I always ask is "if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy, then why not just induce labor?"
I'm not sure that's possible in the first trimester, when the vast majority of abortions take place. At most, you could induce miscarriage, and that's essentially what RU-486 does. So if you're saying, have all abortions be done by RU-486, that is possible. I'm not sure what the point of that would be.
Voting Democrat is almost inexcusable.
I think you make a very good point. An unplanned pregnancy when I was 19 would have been far more horrific to me than an unplanned pregnancy when I was 30, and I would likely have dealt with the two situations quite differently (note to the board: speaking hypothetically in both cases). :)
Good question!
The only people I ever hear argue for abortion, in the media and in life, are angry-sounding women over 50 years old. The message doesn't seem to resonate with the young and who can blame them.
Well...It sounds like there's at least 9% of the people polled here, that understand the phrase, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL". I think it even made it to the commandment stage...
So "Thou shalt not kill" only applies in regards to the baby, not the mother?
I remember a New Testament parable about a man who crossed to the other side of the road rather than aid an injured Samaritan who was 'unclean'. The implied criticism of this man was about his attitude of justifying cruel indifference in the name of purity, but my point in bringing it up is that it shows the importance the Bible placed on basic human decency, aiding the injured, and the sanctity of ALL life. It doesn't place the unborn on a higher pedestal above the mother. So I find it a bit odd to always assume that in a situation where "the pregnancy posed a grave threat to the life of the mother" (physical, not emotional or mental or social 'threats') that the baby's life (in situations where the baby's survival odds are lower than the mother's) must be automatically saved at the expense of the mother's life.
For those who don't believe in the New Testament but do believe in the Old Testament, there is also a passage that prescribes the penalty of death for someone who kills a woman, or kills a child, but a less severe penalty for someone who injures but doesn't kill a woman while causing her to lose her baby. Hence in the very rare case where the mom's physical life is in danger, I'm not going to blanket trash her and her family as 'murderers' and breakers of the Ten Commandments for a deeply-weighed and difficult decision.
Great pics, thanks
put it to a vote!
For people who are narrow enough to be one-issue voters, that is probably true. I think most people are more involved with other issues to be so myopic.
*************
I am as well.
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.