Two quick questions for the pro-life of the forum...

[Gabu]

I'm probably going to regret this, but...

It's something that I've always wanted to know:

Do you honestly believe that every member in the pro-choice crowd knows in their hearts that abortion at any time during pregnancy is the murder of a baby and is simply okay with murder?

If not, then why is that the only argument ever given in opposition to the pro-choice position, even when you're not trying to convince anyone but pro-choice people?

Forgive me, but I've always wondered this.  I always see people condemning those who are pro-choice for supporting murder, as if it's an accepted fact by everyone in the world that abortion at all stages of pregnancy is murder, and I just had to ask.

If the answer to the first question is a resounding "yes", then I will officially simply give up attempting to engage in debates on abortion.

[Richard]

Well, I'm not pro-life, but I'll answer anyways.

I'm probably going to regret this, but...

It's something that I've always wanted to know:

Do you honestly believe that every member in the pro-choice crowd knows in their hearts that abortion at any time during pregnancy is the murder of a baby and is simply okay with murder?

Yes.  You know damn well it is wrong.  Your conscience tells it to you.  Over time, I'm sure you manage to shut it out though.

[dazzleman]

I'm probably going to regret this, but...

It's something that I've always wanted to know:

Do you honestly believe that every member in the pro-choice crowd knows in their hearts that abortion at any time during pregnancy is the murder of a baby and is simply okay with murder?

If not, then why is that the only argument ever given in opposition to the pro-choice position, even when you're not trying to convince anyone but pro-choice people?

Forgive me, but I've always wondered this.  I always see people condemning those who are pro-choice for supporting murder, as if it's an accepted fact by everyone in the world that abortion at all stages of pregnancy is murder, and I just had to ask.

If the answer to the first question is a resounding "yes", then I will officially simply give up attempting to engage in debates on abortion.

I think that pro-lifers generally believe that people who support abortion rationalize away the fact that it involves taking a life.  That is probably why they emphasize the point so often.

There is no standard pro-lifer, really.  Among those who favor legal abortion, there are those who are truly pro-abortion and regard it as nothing more than a medical procedure (radical feminists) , and those who are merely pro-choice, in that they consider abortion regrettable, but think that either the government doesn't have the right to regulate it, or that it is sometimes the best of several bad options.

The pro-abortion crowd thinks that the right to end a pregnancy is so important that they don't care that they're taking a life.  Their fealty to the concept of abortion is so great that they are willing to permit a procedure that delivers a baby alive, and then kills it.  The people that are merely pro-choice are not as savage, and it is these people that are willing to support certain restrictions on the way the procedures or carried out, or the timing of the procedure relative to the progress of the pregnancy, because they know deep down that abortion is a questionable thing, and they want to minimize it so that they can rationalize away the fact that it involves taking a life.

I do not believe in abortion per se, but I am less concerned about imposing my personal views than I am about the fact that abortion was legalized in an undemocratic manner.  I don't support the reasoning behind Roe vs. Wade, and I don't think it's appropriate for courts to effectively make policy (where in the constitution could they have found the backing for the trimester concept - that is totally arbitrary and should be left to the democratic process).  

In sum, I don't believe legal abortion is a woman's rights issue per se, given that there are plenty of other ways to avoid having a baby, and I do believe that the state has a right to regulate abortion if that is the will of the majority.  I think it is a perfectly plausible concept to think that life begins at conception, and to place severe limits on abortion, particularly late term abortions.  An unborn baby could certainly be afforded the status of a human being, with all the legal protections that come along with that, at least after a certain point in the pregnancy.  

I think the issue of abortion should have been left up to the states, and it would not have become so radicalized.  It became radicalized because the courts removed the issue from the democratic process.  That happens whenever the courts override the democratic process on issues that are peripherally constitutional, at best (the same thing happened with forced busing, and will probably happen with gay marriage).

For the real hard core pro-abortion crowd, I think abortion is simply an issue of convenience, cloaked in the rhetoric of rights in order to give it more credibility.  I don't look at it as an isolated issue, but part of a whole philosophy, subscribed to mostly by liberals, that places an undue emphasis on rights of individuals in certain cases, and ignores the responsibility of individuals to insure that nobody is harmed in the exercise of those rights.  This approach to life extends across a broad spectrum of issues, not just abortion, and I abhor it.  Part and parcel of this philosophy is a rejection of the concept of right and wrong, and an embrace of moral relativity, in which I also don't believe.  I am unnerved by a philosophy that unapologetically claims the right for mortal human beings to destroy life in any but the most extreme circumstances.

[Jake]

Wow, my post will never equal the greatness of dazzleman's , but nevertheless, I will try.

To answer your question, I believe that somewhere in the back of everyone's mind is a conscience that tells everyone what is right and what is wrong. My conscience tells me that there are major problems with the death penalty and that I shouldn't support it. But, over time, I've developed the thinking that those who committ terrible crimes deserve a terrible death. I can't reconcile that with my conscience, so I try to block it out. I ignore the feeling when I see things about the death penalty on TV and I move onto something else. Over time, I've become able to ignore that nagging voice in the back of my head saying that the death penalty is wrong.

In the same way, I believe that many pro-choicers do the same thing. They repeat the same thing over and over again in their minds. Saying that if the abortion didn't happen, the women's life would be ruined. If they are able to repeat this to themselves enough, they are able to ignore that the abortion is murder, and just tell themselves it's a simple medical procedure.  In the same way I ignore my conscience on the death penalty, they ignore that nagging voice that tells them abortion is wrong.  I bet that the overwhelming majority of pro-choicers would rather not allow abortion, and would rather the children live. They choose to ignore their conscience, which I consider to be a major failing of many of the pro-choicers, just as they probably feel about my support for the death penalty.  I do, though, believe that a small percentage of pro-choicers actually believe that having an abortion is just like taking a tumor out or removing your appendix.  This is the crowd that is destroying the Democratic Party and making them seem as radical as they are.

A very good question Gabu

[Nym90]

Dazzleman's analysis is good, though I think he vastly overestimates the percentage of all Americans who think abortion is a good thing, and view it as nothing more than a medical procedure. They represent the vast minority even of "feminists", and are no more than perhaps 1% of the American population. Not to mention that they and other radical liberals have effectively no power in America, and haven't for some time now. That's not to underestimate the dangerousness of their views, but they are far from the greatest possible threat to America, since they are in such a minority and their views are so unacceptable to the vast majority of Americans that they have absolutely no chance whatsoever of attaining any true power in this country in the foreseeable future, barring a radical shift to the left among the general population.

I personally feel that the moment at which a fetus ceases to be a part of the woman's body and becomes a human in its own right is a grey area. I don't believe that a fetus is a human being at the moment of conception. I do believe that a fetus that is about to be born is clearly a human being. Where the line is crossed varies depending on the fetus. I feel that in order for it to be considered a human being, it needs to be able to at least theoretically live outside of the womb, independent of its mother; that's my personal definition of a human being, an organism that can live on its own and is not 100% dependent on another organism for all basic life processes. Others may disagree with this definition, but it makes sense to me.

So I would personally draw the line at 5 months, since that's the current record at which a fetus has been born prematurely and lived. Ideally we'd know the exact moment at which the fetus could survive outside the womb, and set a different limit for each fetus, but obviously that's not possible, so we should err on the side of caution and use the earliest theoretically possible time.

I also don't feel that making abortion illegal is the best way to reduce abortion. I feel that increasing the educational level of the population and removing the economic necessity for abortion is the most important thing that we need to do. Rather than demonize certain segments of the population, and proclaim that they do not share our goals and should be treated as enemies, I think that both sides need to sit down and realize that we, indeed, all share the same goals, and that we merely have different ways of getting there. We need more civility and less demonization of those who disagree with us, not only on this issue, but on others as well.

So, that's my take on the issue; I feel that education and improving economic opportunity for all is the key, and that's the part that I don't see conservatives being eager to embrace in many cases.

[dazzleman]

Eric, I don't agree that those who are uncompromisingly pro-abortion represent only 1% of the population.  I don't know what percentage they are, but they are a significant percentage of hard-core feminists, in my opinion.

This issue ties in with another that we discussed last week, judicial activism, in my mind.  I think that the radical liberals that you ackowledge are a danger have a level of control well out of balance with their numbers due to their manipulation of the judiciary, and their propensity to have things like abortion declared as basic constitutional rights, and therefore sacrosanct and removed from the democratic process.

While the moment the unborn child becomes a separate person may be a gray area, I would put that moment well before the fifth month, in any case.  By the fifth month, the baby is fully formed in every aspect, though very small.  Abortion in the embryo stage is much easier to justify than in the advanced fetus stage.

Abortion is one of those issues for which I don't have an easy answer, much like the race issue.  I think abortion is wrong at any stage, really, and I think we should be looking for a way to seriously reduce and even end it as a practice, other than maybe morning after pills or some such thing. 

I think the whole education thing only goes so far.  Education is one component of behavior, but attitude is another.  There are some people who simply don't care about how they behave, and will never act responsibly, and I think that is a reality that needs to be recognized.  I think that when we refuse to recognize this reality, we make our society more vulnerable to the harm done by such people, whatever our good intentions may be.  There are also some who have a radical agenda that not only includes but goes beyond abortion, and don't share the goals of decent people, and as I said, I think this includes a significant portion of hard core feminists.  I wish I could believe otherwise, but I've seen to much evidence to the contrary to soothe myself with those thoughts.

[WMS]

Eric, I don't agree that those who are uncompromisingly pro-abortion represent only 1% of the population.  I don't know what percentage they are, but they are a significant percentage of hard-core feminists, in my opinion.

Sorry for the multi-hour delay - my computer had 'issues'.

The number is 25 to 35 percent. And they're predominately on the left. These are the 'abortion no matter what, at any point' group.

Sources:

Abortion Polls, here

PEW Survey, using cross-checking of religion and ideology within the survey, a PDF here, especially Tables 20 and 21.

I agree quite a bit with dazzleman on this one. I would simply add that while Nym's idea of reducing abortion through other means is a good one, that 25 to 35 percent mentioned above have absolutely no interest in doing so - they've had how many decades since Roe v. Wade to do this? Remember my comments about the 1996 Democratic Convention?

It's clear to me that while there is potential common ground with the pro-choice but not pro-abortion group, there is no way the pro-abortion group can be reasoned with.

[Beet]

WMS, great sources. I would just like to add that many people will respond "generally available" or "in all cases" to a vague poll question but when you ask them specifics, you realize there are limits. If the psychological thing we're talking about here is supporting abortion without regard to the status of the fetus, then that is relevant.

According to thisABC Poll, about 11% support the right to have an abortion during the third trimester. This could include people who think it should only be legal after the third trimester to save the woman's life; the poll is vague enough on that point to include those respondents in the 11%. About 23% support the legality of D&X/partial birth abortion. Then again, many people do not know very much about what exactly happens during such procedure, so we may be picking up some knee-jerk replies here.

Overall, I think the evidence shows, whether on the pro-life or pro-choice side, that there is a gradient across people, not a sharp cutting-off point that marks the difference between two clearly defined camps, as we find it easy to think. Instead, there are many gray areas and people fall all along the spectrum.

I do think it's the fault of both of the major parties for the way the debate is happening now. We should be talking about ways of reducing the incidence of abortion as much as we can, on both sides. Unfortunately party leaders have no incentive to do such a thing because the public mostly does not demand it. Rather, abortion is used as a litmus test sort of thing-- it's actually useful to the politicians for abortion to be an unsolved issue. It's useful to politicians on both sides.

[WMS]

WMS, great sources. I would just like to add that many people will respond "generally available" or "in all cases" to a vague poll question but when you ask them specifics, you realize there are limits. If the psychological thing we're talking about here is supporting abortion without regard to the status of the fetus, then that is relevant.

Thanks. In the interests of full disclosure, the first link was actually posted by brandonh some while back, and I just linked to it. But the second one's all mine. And you pose a good question - which is why I only counted the "in all cases" responses when estimating the percentages. "Generally available" I didn't use for that exact reason.

According to thisABC Poll, about 11% support the right to have an abortion during the third trimester. This could include people who think it should only be legal after the third trimester to save the woman's life; the poll is vague enough on that point to include those respondents in the 11%. About 23% support the legality of D&X/partial birth abortion. Then again, many people do not know very much about what exactly happens during such procedure, so we may be picking up some knee-jerk replies here.

Vagueness in polls is always a problem - ask The Vorlon about that. None of these polls really dig enough to get a precise statistic nailed down.

Overall, I think the evidence shows, whether on the pro-life or pro-choice side, that there is a gradient across people, not a sharp cutting-off point that marks the difference between two clearly defined camps, as we find it easy to think. Instead, there are many gray areas and people fall all along the spectrum.

Yes yes yes yes yes! I've always believed this, and it's pretty clear from the actual conversations I've had with people over the years (especially in my own family). There's more gray than any other color on this one...

I do think it's the fault of both of the major parties for the way the debate is happening now. We should be talking about ways of reducing the incidence of abortion as much as we can, on both sides. Unfortunately party leaders have no incentive to do such a thing because the public mostly does not demand it. Rather, abortion is used as a litmus test sort of thing-- it's actually useful to the politicians for abortion to be an unsolved issue. It's useful to politicians on both sides.

Outstanding answer! I've come to this conclusion myself through the aforementioned conversations - I believe my comment was along the lines of 'both extremes wouldn't be able to send angry fund-raising letters to people if they actually tried to compromise on the issue'. There's some self-interest on the part of the extremists in keeping the issue going.

[muon2]

I'm probably going to regret this, but...

It's something that I've always wanted to know:

Do you honestly believe that every member in the pro-choice crowd knows in their hearts that abortion at any time during pregnancy is the murder of a baby and is simply okay with murder?

If not, then why is that the only argument ever given in opposition to the pro-choice position, even when you're not trying to convince anyone but pro-choice people?

The majority of Americans are unsure about  the exact beginning of human lfe, and that causes the grey area in beliefs.  When discussing abortion with pro-choice people, I tend to focus on their understanding of what is human life, and how we should define it, not on the negative, this is murder aspect.

For instance, even though many people rest on a viability argument, I find this to be in conflict with the last 30 years of legal and moral understanding of human life. People no longer need to be able to live independently to be considered "viable". Heart beat and breathing can stop for a time and be supported by extrenal means. For me, the core defintion of life revolves around brain activity. I think part of what made the Schiavo case so difficult for so many, was the lack of understanding of her brain function. Even the experts were of split opinions.

I prefer to apply a uniform standard to define human life at any point in time. Given our state of technology, brain activity seems to be the best standard available. If that is the case, then I feel any fetus with brain activity is as alive and desrving of basic rights as any patient attached to an artificial pump during open-heart surgery.

Even so, I recognize that there are many other standards one can construct. I claim no special knowledge of when human life really begins, but I can only go with the best understanding we have at the present time. My argument only asks that one use a consistent standard to define human life, not one that treats some times of life (before birth) with a different standard than other times (after birth).

[opebo]

It is none of your business, people.

[opebo]

Women can just leave those already-birthed babies on the doorstep.  The cells attached to and dependent on their bodies have to be removed medically.

[opebo]

Women can just leave those already-birthed babies on the doorstep. 

Are you advocating this?

Well of course!  I thought that's what you lifeys wanted, adoption.  Certainly it beats euthanizing them doesn't it?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Eric, I don't agree that those who are uncompromisingly pro-abortion represent only 1% of the population.  I don't know what percentage they are, but they are a significant percentage of hard-core feminists, in my opinion.

Sorry for the multi-hour delay - my computer had 'issues'.

The number is 25 to 35 percent. And they're predominately on the left. These are the 'abortion no matter what, at any point' group.

Sources:

Abortion Polls, here

PEW Survey, using cross-checking of religion and ideology within the survey, a PDF here, especially Tables 20 and 21.

I agree quite a bit with dazzleman on this one. I would simply add that while Nym's idea of reducing abortion through other means is a good one, that 25 to 35 percent mentioned above have absolutely no interest in doing so - they've had how many decades since Roe v. Wade to do this? Remember my comments about the 1996 Democratic Convention?

It's clear to me that while there is potential common ground with the pro-choice but not pro-abortion group, there is no way the pro-abortion group can be reasoned with.

I think you slightly overstate the 'abortion on demand' crowd.  From what I have seen, among the electorate, they comprise 20 - 25 per cent.

[phk]

Women can just leave those already-birthed babies on the doorstep. 

Are you advocating this?

Well of course!  I thought that's what you lifeys wanted, adoption.  Certainly it beats euthanizing them doesn't it?

They become so obsessed with protecting the baby before its born and when it pops out it becomes public enemy number 1.

In reality, to be pro-lifer means that you would want the baby to starve to death before age 5.

[Hitchabrut]

Many people with pro-choice views have viewed tradition and belief in the importance of life to be obsolete and without scientific reason, so they really don'tcare, ultimately.

[Nym90]

Ok, well my one percent figure may have been understated. I don't know what the exact number is, but based on the polls I've seen, maybe it's in the 10 percent range. Hard to say for sure. I was talking about people who have no interest whatsoever in reducing the number of abortions; people who actually believe that abortion is perfectly ok, and do not see it as necessarily a good thing if there were fewer abortions.

At any rate, the vast majority of people who are pro-choice are "anti-abortion" in the sense that they support reducing the number of abortions performed. That was my basic point.

Muon brings up a good point about when life begins, and having a uniform standard for it. I agree that brain activity is important, though there are other factors, as well. I must admit that I'm undecided on exactly when life begins, and my position is potentially subject to change.

I guess the main things that keeps me in the pro-choice camp is the fact that I can't possibly support throwing a woman or a doctor in jail over abortion. I just don't see what that accomplishes, or how that makes the world a better place overall. I don't think that's the best way to reduce abortion, and I don't think it would even end up resulting in much of an overall reduction in abortion.

Yes, there are some people who will be irresponsible no matter what, regardless of how many opportunites they are given. But I still have a great faith in humanity overall to make the right decision when presented with enough information and the opportunity to do the right thing. Call me naive, I guess.

[WMS]

Eric, I don't agree that those who are uncompromisingly pro-abortion represent only 1% of the population.  I don't know what percentage they are, but they are a significant percentage of hard-core feminists, in my opinion.

Sorry for the multi-hour delay - my computer had 'issues'.

The number is 25 to 35 percent. And they're predominately on the left. These are the 'abortion no matter what, at any point' group.

Sources:

Abortion Polls, here

PEW Survey, using cross-checking of religion and ideology within the survey, a PDF here, especially Tables 20 and 21.

I agree quite a bit with dazzleman on this one. I would simply add that while Nym's idea of reducing abortion through other means is a good one, that 25 to 35 percent mentioned above have absolutely no interest in doing so - they've had how many decades since Roe v. Wade to do this? Remember my comments about the 1996 Democratic Convention?

It's clear to me that while there is potential common ground with the pro-choice but not pro-abortion group, there is no way the pro-abortion group can be reasoned with.

I think you slightly overstate the 'abortion on demand' crowd.  From what I have seen, among the electorate, they comprise 20 - 25 per cent.

That would've been my initial estimate, but in some of those polls the numbers jump up to around 35 percent. I picked 25 to 35 percent  as a compromise, although you could be right - what's your source for 20-25 percent, by the way? Just curious - I'm not challenging the validity of your statement.

And Nym, I don't know how much of the 25-35 percent I'm mentioning have no problems with abortion whatsoever - the polls don't ask that question, unfortunately. I'd say the percent that's happy with partial-birth abortion would definitely fall into that category...

[ian]

Do you honestly believe that every member in the pro-choice crowd knows in their hearts that abortion at any time during pregnancy is the murder of a baby and is simply okay with murder?

If not, then why is that the only argument ever given in opposition to the pro-choice position, even when you're not trying to convince anyone but pro-choice people?

1.  No.  I am pro-life, but I realize the truth about abortion.  It isn't murder; it prevents life.  And all pro-choice persons know this.
2.  I don't use that logic.  I use mine.  And I don't really push my pro-life position.

[The Duke]

1. No, I don't think all pro-choice people believe that abortion is murder.  I do think many suspect exactly that, which is why there are so many pro-choice people who want to ban partial birth abortion.  The only difference between partial birth abortion and 1st trimester abortion is the procedure, not the innate value of the fetus which remains unchanged throughout the pregnancy.  Why oppose partial birth if the fetus in not alive?  Because there isa  guilt complex just below the surface of many, if not most, pro-choice people.

There's the old Cuomo position of "I'm against it personally, but its the woman's coice."  This is kind of a gutless position, again, a result of a guilt complex by someone who must know the truth but can't admit it.  Why are you against it personally if its not harming anyone?  Since it does harm someone, then, why are you for legalizing it?  Its a self contradictory position to take, and makes no sense.  A good explaination of this kind of position is that the pro-choicer knows it makes no sense, but suppresses their logic and reason in order to hold true to liberal orthodoxy.

Then there are tose who do think abortion is fine, a mere medical procedure, and the fetus has no value.

Then there are people like migrendel who think that regardless of the fetus having value, the woman has an absolute right to control her reproduction, regardless of harm to anyone.  Hence, he is alright with post-birth-abortion.

These last two groups are the minority even within the pro-choice community in America.

Some pro-choice people believe abortion

2. Why call it murder in debates?  Because that's what some people believe.  Why do pro-choice people say "It's my body, I can do what I want." when they know their opponent does not accept this premise?  A lot of debate is a battle over premises, so this part of the debate is necessary even if it won't usually result in converts.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Eric, I don't agree that those who are uncompromisingly pro-abortion represent only 1% of the population.  I don't know what percentage they are, but they are a significant percentage of hard-core feminists, in my opinion.

Sorry for the multi-hour delay - my computer had 'issues'.

The number is 25 to 35 percent. And they're predominately on the left. These are the 'abortion no matter what, at any point' group.

Sources:

Abortion Polls, here

PEW Survey, using cross-checking of religion and ideology within the survey, a PDF here, especially Tables 20 and 21.

I agree quite a bit with dazzleman on this one. I would simply add that while Nym's idea of reducing abortion through other means is a good one, that 25 to 35 percent mentioned above have absolutely no interest in doing so - they've had how many decades since Roe v. Wade to do this? Remember my comments about the 1996 Democratic Convention?

It's clear to me that while there is potential common ground with the pro-choice but not pro-abortion group, there is no way the pro-abortion group can be reasoned with.

I think you slightly overstate the 'abortion on demand' crowd.  From what I have seen, among the electorate, they comprise 20 - 25 per cent.

That would've been my initial estimate, but in some of those polls the numbers jump up to around 35 percent. I picked 25 to 35 percent  as a compromise, although you could be right - what's your source for 20-25 percent, by the way? Just curious - I'm not challenging the validity of your statement.

And Nym, I don't know how much of the 25-35 percent I'm mentioning have no problems with abortion whatsoever - the polls don't ask that question, unfortunately. I'd say the percent that's happy with partial-birth abortion would definitely fall into that category...

Fair question

Gallup 3/21-23   

LA Times 1/15-17

ABC News/Washington Post 12/16-19

You can see these three polls on Polling Report.

[J.R. Brown]

First of all, the terms pro-life and pro-choice have become overly simplified in American politics. Like most pro-life people are against abortion,but support the death penalty. Which I don't understand.

I'm an anti-abortion, anti-death penalty pro-lifer. I believe that abortion should never be the first choice for unwanted pregnacies. I believe that women should go through some sort of spiritual or psychological counseling before making such a serious decision.

I also believe that the death penalty is equally immoral. It's vengance more sins committed and against all of the teachings in the New Testament. We should give criminals life in prison and a long time to repent for what they've done. Ultimately, it's up to God to decide who lives and dies, and who he will forgive and accept into his kingdom.

I don't want to start sounding like a televangelist, but the beautiful and most mind boggling thing about our lord is that he loves sinners as well as non-sinners and will forgive if you ask and are truly sincere in you heart and mind.

[WMS]

[snip - post is getting kind of long]

Fair question

Gallup 3/21-23   

LA Times 1/15-17

ABC News/Washington Post 12/16-19

You can see these three polls on Polling Report.

Saw them - thanks! I got my data from here...which is the same place, actually! I just used all of the polls.

[CARLHAYDEN]

There are a couple of problems with the other polls at the site you cited:

First, the sample in some of them is skewed to the left.

Second, the questions in some of them are loaded to produce the result desired.

[WMS]

There are a couple of problems with the other polls at the site you cited:

First, the sample in some of them is skewed to the left.

Second, the questions in some of them are loaded to produce the result desired.

Ah, thanks - I couldn't make that distinction from what was on the site.

So it's closer to 20-25% pro-abortion, then?