Father of 7 with his two oldest sons. Catholic, conservative, pro life, nice guy.
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)
It depends upon what you consider to be an abortion, and what you consider to be the beginning of an individual human life. A unique human being begins generation following the moment of conception, i.e., fertilization.
Any deliberate disruption of the fertilized egg's generation can be considered an abortion. So a chemical that prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg represents an abortifacient in essence.
The PCP is believed to work principally by preventing your ovaries from releasing an egg, and by affecting the womb lining, so that a fertilised egg couldn’t ‘embed’ itself there.
Adoption and/or orphanages.
What I'd like to also know is this: I don't understand why it is so difficult to adopt in this country.
I suspect that it has a lot to do with supply and demand.
Understood. I guess my point was to find a way to separate two issues - the baby, and the mother. To a degree, I think each side focuses on one half of the equation and not the other. (I really don't mean to offend anyone; hear me out!)
To me, the argument about a woman controlling her own body is one thing. But where a fetus is viable, my point was that a woman could "control her own body" by giving birth; the destruction of the unborn child is not necessary. That's when the "who's going to take care of it" argument comes in - one I have very little patience with. To me, if you give someone the option of just inducing labor - if it lives, it lives; if not, not - and they still have issues, then it seems to m there's another issue than "controlling one's body."
As for the question about caring for children, we don't get rid of people because they're unwanted. I guess the taxpayer will have to take care of them, like we fund the homeless shelters, AIDS hospices, etc. It's sick that so many in our society see no irony in saying "either you take care of it or let me kill it" and that personal responsibility is not an option. My reference to "culture of life" is shorthand for my hope and belief that thinking about this issue differently will result in fewer people putting themselves in this situation if they do not want a child.
Just some thoughts . . .
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
I suppose that's true, and I hope that more people see it as a remedy for the problem than see it as the problem itself.
Already forensic science is able to predict the appearance of a child years after it has disappeared.The difficulty people have telling identical twins apart tells you how well it is in principle possible to predict the appearance of a person (at any age) from DNA defined at conception. If the algorithm is ever developed to effectively perform that transformation from DNA to adult appearance, it certainly would seem impossible to seperate abortion from manslaughter.
We are more and younger. They are fewer and older. It is only a matter of time before we win.
Father of 7 with his two oldest sons. Catholic, conservative, pro life, nice guy.
I'm curious as to what other public policy issues you regard as important as laws that have allowed the killing of 44 million human beings in the last 33 years?
I am a fiscal conservative rather than a social conservative, so there are many. I am far more concerned with national security issues, as one example.
What are you referring to?
It's the power of the internet. More and more are starting to realize that NARAL et al were founded on lies.
Agreed.
The morning-after pill, which is what we were discussing. Some see it as an automatic abortifacient; some see it as a way to avoid abortion. In any event, it's a moot point; it's the approximate equivalent of taking three oral contraceptive pills, and the Pill will never be outlawed.
Mom of 2, Grandma of 5, Catholic, conservative, very pro life. Nice lady.
There's no way to put this kindly. You sound like a heartless conservative.
I challenge you to look at the face of 44 million dead babies and persist in your belief that there are other more important public policy issues.
Baptist Ping
Then we'll agree to disagree. :)
Thanks for the ping!
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.