Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: pcl
What is your guess at the additional percentage of people who will now: Be more Pro-choice but never do anything about it? Vote more Pro-choice in the polls only?....etc.

Maybe you would really like to tell me your answers for these questions about groups you have chosen to discuss?

I gave you my estimates about the groups in general, and I do not need to break down the estimates into smaller groups. Abortion opinions are finely tuned for each individual fence-sitter and we would have as many possible combinations of opinions, say, about months abortion should be legal or circumstances in which it should be illegal, as there are fence-sitter voters. I'd hate to spend the hours it would take to determine answers to your questions and I don't think it would be necessary, since, IMHO, it would be a case of "seeing the trees, but missing the forest."

I'll say it again,

I believe Cunningham wins more than he loses because, in effect, "fence-sitters" are, practically speaking, already pro-choice.

It's highly doubtful that the degree of fence-sitters' pro-choiceness will be intensified due to their viewing those graphically gruesome pictures, because that would be emotionally equivalent to a previously apathetic person viewing a Humane Society's picture of an abused dog and deciding to go out and support people who are abusing dogs.

The Humane Society has the sympathy factor working for them, and they know it. I think Cunningham has tapped into that same vein of human sympathy for the abused.

It is true the signs might convince the firmly pro-choice that they need to take stronger action, since the ante has now been upped. I think the firmly pro-choice people are pretty ticked-off since the fetuses don't look like blobs.

The pro-choicers know that fence-sitters are, practically speaking, feeble pro-choicers, who are willing to take an innocent life in certain circumstances. Rabid pro-choicers would love to have fencesitters stay the fencesitting folks that they already are because they are safer that way.

455 posted on 12/04/2001 6:25:54 AM PST by syriacus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies ]


To: syriacus
Maybe you would really like to tell me your answers for these questions about groups you have chosen to discuss?

IMHO, the numbers will be so miniscule as to be inseperable from random statistical fluctations.

464 posted on 12/04/2001 11:37:36 AM PST by pcl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 455 | View Replies ]

To: syriacus
It's highly doubtful that the degree of fence-sitters' pro-choiceness will be intensified due to their viewing those graphically gruesome pictures, because that would be emotionally equivalent to a previously apathetic person viewing a Humane Society's picture of an abused dog and deciding to go out and support people who are abusing dogs.

There are not many people who have been previously involved with abused dogs. The images would not trigger a cognitive dissonance from them. Your anology is invalide

Someone said there had been 45 million abortions in the USA since ROE vs Wade. That is about 15% of the population of the USA. Most of those 45 million had at least one if not many other people involved in their abortion. There is a fairly significant portion of the population for whom the obsecne images can and will trigger a cognitive dissoance. A great number of these will become more millitant because that is the nature of cognitive dissonance.

465 posted on 12/04/2001 11:46:57 AM PST by pcl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 455 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson