Father od several , conservative, Catholic, pro life.
You see a pattern developing here? :-}
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)
Father od several , conservative, Catholic, pro life.
You see a pattern developing here? :-}
I really do believe the biggest factor in the demise of abortion (other than prayer) is ultrasound.
Sometimes it acts as a contraceptive and sometimes as an abortifacient. The difference in action is vast.
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.
It's a moot point because the pill will never be outlawed? Well, shouldn't people, at the very least, know whether they're using a contraceptive or an abortifacient? If people knew that the pill acts as an abortifacient, wouldn't more people oppose its use?
I don't know what most people would do. I don't know why most people wouldn't want to understand how ANY of their medications work, but some just take 50mg of the "blue one" because their doctors gave it to them. Information about how the pill works is not a deep, dark secret.
You are pro choice. I understand your reticence to come right out and say it but there it is.
Now once again, where is the logic in protecting a one day old baby born prematurely at 6 months but allowing a full term 9 month baby to be torn limb from limb 12 inches from birth?
What magical property have the oligarchs found where the baby conceived 6 months ago has more rights than one conceived 9 months ago?
You always meet nice folks at the March and Rally
Love the photo :-)
Sure do see a pattern. Happy to have been 1 of 5
Everyone is pro choice on some level. Everyone has circumstances, however narrow, in which they would "allow" abortion, but that's still a choice, whatever the criteria. I'm not "reticent" because I don't take this issue personally, as so many do; I think it's a very interesting legal and public policy issue.
The rest of your question I recognize from a cut and paste on another thread. Weaving through the melodrama of your question, I think we can agree that the difference, in your example, is the legal difference between born and unborn. How that will be resolved I do not know; I am just reporting on the current state of the law. To position the full-term scenario as being particularly representative of abortion is questionable at best, but that was how you phrased it.
The Bible is showing us in the situation regarding, "The Good Samaritan" how incredibly callous and indifferent people can be, toward others. And taking it all a step further, that is exactly what the entire Bible is showing us. That is the purpose of The Bible. Yes. It also reflects people who, come to bat, and do what's right. But, most often it is showing and telling us what happens to our own sense of right and wrong if God is not at the center. When man is at the center, the rules change with each passing wind. With God's laws, nothing ever changes.
And, you are bringing in several different topics, and things seem a bit antagonistic, but I'll address this anyway.
"So "Thou shalt not kill" only applies in regards to the baby, not the mother?"
This sounds quite antagonistic. It sounds like you are trying to, "Paint me into a corner". But you are quite correct! Very seldom, is the woman's life in danger anymore. The pro-abortion folks have just twisted it all around to mean that the woman's life is in jeopardy, if she can no longer afford to eat a $400 dollar meal every night, or whatever other contingency you'd like to apply.
THIS is where the issue must be won. In the hearts and minds of our fellow countrymen and women.
That is what I support.
Actually not a cut and paste. Simply the same question repeated and the same answer by you Linda. No answer. That's because there is no answer. But sometimes non answers speak volumes.
I absolutely agree with this. If women do not see abortion as a feasible option, they won't have them.
I gave you an answer. You just didn't like it. :)
Ain't science they hate, it's the hijacking of science.
I want to know how you, Linda_22003, answer the question. So tell me Linda, how do you in your own mind justify the killing of a baby 9 months post conceptus while protecting in law a baby 6 months post conceptus? How do you do that??????
In this case, character was destiny as well!
22 weeks Linda. A baby or a kangaroo? :-}
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.