2018 Gallup Abortion Poll: Dead Heat Between "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice"

[100% pro-life no matter what]

48-48 on the pro-life/pro-choice question, but by a margin of 53/43, people say it should be illegal in all or most cases.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/235445/abortion-attitudes-remain-closely-divided.aspx?g_source=link_NEWSV9&g_medium=TOPIC&g_campaign=item_&g_content=U.S.%2520Abortion%2520Attitudes%2520Remain%2520Closely%2520Divided

[Greedo punched first]

Most say "legal only under certain circumstances". Many are probably like me, pro-choice but against late-term abortion.

[dw93]

God I hope the number of people that don't want it legal under any circumstances doesn't exceed 18%.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Anti-choicers really need to find a hobby that doesn't involve being consumed with a random woman's womb.

[KingSweden]

Most say "legal only under certain circumstances". Many are probably like me, pro-choice but against late-term abortion.

[136or142]

48-48 on the pro-life/pro-choice question, but by a margin of 53/43, people say it should be illegal in all or most cases.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/235445/abortion-attitudes-remain-closely-divided.aspx?g_source=link_NEWSV9&g_medium=TOPIC&g_campaign=item_&g_content=U.S.%2520Abortion%2520Attitudes%2520Remain%2520Closely%2520Divided

I wonder what the result would have been if the question had been much more accurate like 'anti-abortion/pro choice'

[7,052,770]

Most say "legal only under certain circumstances". Many are probably like me, pro-choice but against late-term abortion.

The disconnect is that most people on both sides don't realize that elective late term abortion isn't legal anywhere and no one advocates that it should be. Thus a lot of people think they're more conservative (relative to the center or relative to the status quo) than they actually are.

Hillary bombed that question in the debate with Trump, sadly. She should have pointed that out.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Welcome to America, where we are the one developed western nation where this is still an issue, apparently.

[KingSweden]

Most say "legal only under certain circumstances". Many are probably like me, pro-choice but against late-term abortion.

The disconnect is that most people on both sides don't realize that elective late term abortion isn't legal anywhere and no one advocates that it should be. Thus a lot of people think they're more conservative (relative to the center or relative to the status quo) than they actually are.

Hillary bombed that question in the debate with Trump, sadly. She should have pointed that out.

This is a good point, which is why I’m satisfied with America’s abortion regime as it stands.

[Yellowhammer]

Welcome to America, where we are the one developed western nation where this is still an issue, apparently.

That's a good thing. At least a significant portion of our population still has a moral conscience.

[136or142]

Welcome to America, where we are the one developed western nation where this is still an issue, apparently.

That's a good thing. At least a significant portion of our population still has a moral conscience.

I'm sure this is much more tied to the anti-learning anti-science attitude in America.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

Welcome to America, where we are the one developed western nation where this is still an issue, apparently.

That's a good thing. At least a significant portion of our population still has a moral conscience.

I'm sure this is much more tied to the anti-learning anti-science attitude in America.

Since when does the question of when personhood begins have to do with being pro- or anti-science?  This is an ethical/moral issue, not a scientific one.

[136or142]

Welcome to America, where we are the one developed western nation where this is still an issue, apparently.

That's a good thing. At least a significant portion of our population still has a moral conscience.

I'm sure this is much more tied to the anti-learning anti-science attitude in America.

Since when does the question of when personhood begins have to do with being pro- or anti-science?  This is an ethical/moral issue, not a scientific one.

Only a person who doesn't understand the science could make a statement that ridiculous.

[Attorney General & LGC Deputy Dwarven Dragon]

Most say "legal only under certain circumstances". Many are probably like me, pro-choice but against late-term abortion.

The disconnect is that most people on both sides don't realize that elective late term abortion isn't legal anywhere and no one advocates that it should be. Thus a lot of people think they're more conservative (relative to the center or relative to the status quo) than they actually are.

Hillary bombed that question in the debate with Trump, sadly. She should have pointed that out.

Hillary explicitly advocated for making elective late-term abortion legal - yes, technically she said she wanted some late term regulation with "exceptions for the health of the woman" - but the problem is those words, once enacted into law, often get twisted to mean almost anything a pro-abortion doctor wants them to mean - so it is basically elective abortion by another name. The current partial birth abortion ban passed by the Bush administration, which Hillary desired to modify or repeal, along with many state regulations, do not include a "health" exception for that very reason.  Furthermore, Clinton made clear that she would seek to force Taxpayers to directly pay for abortions.

That's why Clinton bombed that question so badly - because she didn't want the status quo, whatever that may be - she wanted something more liberal than the status quo.

[Attorney General & LGC Deputy Dwarven Dragon]

Welcome to America, where we are the one developed western nation where this is still an issue, apparently.

Well, most other countries prohibit abortions much more substantially than we do, at least federally. As was discussed during the once-per-republican-congress symbolic vote on a 20 week ban earlier this year, we are one of just seven countries that allows elective abortion after 20 weeks - a group that we should leave as quickly as possible.

[TJ in Oregon]

Welcome to America, where we are the one developed western nation where this is still an issue, apparently.

That's a good thing. At least a significant portion of our population still has a moral conscience.

I'm sure this is much more tied to the anti-learning anti-science attitude in America.

Since when does the question of when personhood begins have to do with being pro- or anti-science?  This is an ethical/moral issue, not a scientific one.

Only a person who doesn't understand the science could make a statement that ridiculous.

Only a person who doesn't understand science could think that a scientific definition of personhood is even in principle possible.

[Sir Mohamed]

The pro-life pro-choice discussion has always been strange to me why this is such a hot topic, although I was raised in a far more conservative country. But I hope the pro-choice camp grows, govt. has better things to do than regulating a woman's body.

[DC Al Fine]

Welcome to America, where we are the one developed western nation where this is still an issue, apparently.

That's a good thing. At least a significant portion of our population still has a moral conscience.

I'm sure this is much more tied to the anti-learning anti-science attitude in America.

Since when does the question of when personhood begins have to do with being pro- or anti-science?  This is an ethical/moral issue, not a scientific one.

Only a person who doesn't understand the science could make a statement that ridiculous.

Only a person who doesn't understand science could think that a scientific definition of personhood is even in principle possible.

Don't ruin scientism by pointing out category errors TJ.

[Person Man]

Welcome to America, where we are the one developed western nation where this is still an issue, apparently.

That's a good thing. At least a significant portion of our population still has a moral conscience.

I'm sure this is much more tied to the anti-learning anti-science attitude in America.

Since when does the question of when personhood begins have to do with being pro- or anti-science?  This is an ethical/moral issue, not a scientific one.

Only a person who doesn't understand the science could make a statement that ridiculous.

Only a person who doesn't understand science could think that a scientific definition of personhood is even in principle possible.

It's not the goal of science to tell people how things should be, but to tell them how things are.

[136or142]

Welcome to America, where we are the one developed western nation where this is still an issue, apparently.

That's a good thing. At least a significant portion of our population still has a moral conscience.

I'm sure this is much more tied to the anti-learning anti-science attitude in America.

Since when does the question of when personhood begins have to do with being pro- or anti-science?  This is an ethical/moral issue, not a scientific one.

Only a person who doesn't understand the science could make a statement that ridiculous.

Only a person who doesn't understand science could think that a scientific definition of personhood is even in principle possible.

Maybe not a precise definition, but certainly a much more informed definition.  If you are claiming, for instance, that the experts on this can't say that there is a difference regarding the personhood between a 1 week old fetus and a baby, I'd say you're outright lying.  This holds true for a 10 week old fetus and several further weeks out as well.

The general argument I use with things like this is "Just because we don't know everything, it doesn't follow that we don't know anything."

It seems to me that is exactly what you are doing: claiming that because it's impossible for science to know everything about the personhood of a fetus, that they can't know anything.

From what I've seen, this is a fairly standard trick of 'religious' conservatives.  "There are holes in evolution, therefore 'intelligent design' is an equivalent alternative."  (A great deal of these 'holes' aren't even true either, but are also 'religious' conservatives misrepresenting the science, or stating outright falsehoods.)  "Evolution is just a theory."

It amazes me how many people who claim to be religious repeatedly and shamelessly violate the 8th Commandment.  

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Welcome to America, where we are the one developed western nation where this is still an issue, apparently.

That's a good thing. At least a significant portion of our population still has a moral conscience.

I'm sure this is much more tied to the anti-learning anti-science attitude in America.

Since when does the question of when personhood begins have to do with being pro- or anti-science?  This is an ethical/moral issue, not a scientific one.

Only a person who doesn't understand the science could make a statement that ridiculous.

Only a person who doesn't understand science could think that a scientific definition of personhood is even in principle possible.

Maybe not a precise definition, but certainly a much more informed definition.  If you are claiming, for instance, that the experts on this can't say that there is a difference regarding the personhood between a 1 week old fetus and a baby, I'd say you're outright lying.  This holds true for a 10 week old fetus and several further weeks out as well.

The general argument I use with things like this is "Just because we don't know everything, it doesn't follow that we don't know anything."

It seems to me that is exactly what you are doing: claiming that because it's impossible for science to know everything about the personhood of a fetus, that they don't know anything.

From what I've seen, this is a fairly standard trick of 'religious' conservatives.  "There are holes in evolution, therefore 'intelligent design' is an equivalent alternative."  (A great deal of these 'holes' aren't even true either, but are also 'religious' conservatives misrepresenting the science, or stating outright falsehoods.)  "Evolution is just a theory."

It amazes me how many people who claim to be religious repeatedly and shamelessly violate the 8th Commandment. 

There is also a big difference between a newborn and a 50 year old, but they are both human.  Same thing with a newborn and a 1 second old unborn baby.

[136or142]

Welcome to America, where we are the one developed western nation where this is still an issue, apparently.

That's a good thing. At least a significant portion of our population still has a moral conscience.

I'm sure this is much more tied to the anti-learning anti-science attitude in America.

Since when does the question of when personhood begins have to do with being pro- or anti-science?  This is an ethical/moral issue, not a scientific one.

Only a person who doesn't understand the science could make a statement that ridiculous.

Only a person who doesn't understand science could think that a scientific definition of personhood is even in principle possible.

Maybe not a precise definition, but certainly a much more informed definition.  If you are claiming, for instance, that the experts on this can't say that there is a difference regarding the personhood between a 1 week old fetus and a baby, I'd say you're outright lying.  This holds true for a 10 week old fetus and several further weeks out as well.

The general argument I use with things like this is "Just because we don't know everything, it doesn't follow that we don't know anything."

It seems to me that is exactly what you are doing: claiming that because it's impossible for science to know everything about the personhood of a fetus, that they don't know anything.

From what I've seen, this is a fairly standard trick of 'religious' conservatives.  "There are holes in evolution, therefore 'intelligent design' is an equivalent alternative."  (A great deal of these 'holes' aren't even true either, but are also 'religious' conservatives misrepresenting the science, or stating outright falsehoods.)  "Evolution is just a theory."

It amazes me how many people who claim to be religious repeatedly and shamelessly violate the 8th Commandment.  

There is also a big difference between a newborn and a 50 year old, but they are both human.  Same thing with a newborn and a 1 second old unborn baby.

On the second part, not according to the science.  You can believe any falsehood you like, that doesn't make it true.

Also, your analogy is absurd.

[Person Man]

Welcome to America, where we are the one developed western nation where this is still an issue, apparently.

That's a good thing. At least a significant portion of our population still has a moral conscience.

I'm sure this is much more tied to the anti-learning anti-science attitude in America.

Since when does the question of when personhood begins have to do with being pro- or anti-science?  This is an ethical/moral issue, not a scientific one.

Only a person who doesn't understand the science could make a statement that ridiculous.

Only a person who doesn't understand science could think that a scientific definition of personhood is even in principle possible.

Maybe not a precise definition, but certainly a much more informed definition.  If you are claiming, for instance, that the experts on this can't say that there is a difference regarding the personhood between a 1 week old fetus and a baby, I'd say you're outright lying.  This holds true for a 10 week old fetus and several further weeks out as well.

The general argument I use with things like this is "Just because we don't know everything, it doesn't follow that we don't know anything."

It seems to me that is exactly what you are doing: claiming that because it's impossible for science to know everything about the personhood of a fetus, that they don't know anything.

From what I've seen, this is a fairly standard trick of 'religious' conservatives.  "There are holes in evolution, therefore 'intelligent design' is an equivalent alternative."  (A great deal of these 'holes' aren't even true either, but are also 'religious' conservatives misrepresenting the science, or stating outright falsehoods.)  "Evolution is just a theory."

It amazes me how many people who claim to be religious repeatedly and shamelessly violate the 8th Commandment. 

There is also a big difference between a newborn and a 50 year old, but they are both human.  Same thing with a newborn and a 1 second old unborn baby.

On the second part, not according to the science.  You can believe any falsehood you like, that doesn't make it true.

Conception is a process over the course of days unless you want to break it down further.

[136or142]

Welcome to America, where we are the one developed western nation where this is still an issue, apparently.

That's a good thing. At least a significant portion of our population still has a moral conscience.

I'm sure this is much more tied to the anti-learning anti-science attitude in America.

Since when does the question of when personhood begins have to do with being pro- or anti-science?  This is an ethical/moral issue, not a scientific one.

Only a person who doesn't understand the science could make a statement that ridiculous.

Only a person who doesn't understand science could think that a scientific definition of personhood is even in principle possible.

Maybe not a precise definition, but certainly a much more informed definition.  If you are claiming, for instance, that the experts on this can't say that there is a difference regarding the personhood between a 1 week old fetus and a baby, I'd say you're outright lying.  This holds true for a 10 week old fetus and several further weeks out as well.

The general argument I use with things like this is "Just because we don't know everything, it doesn't follow that we don't know anything."

It seems to me that is exactly what you are doing: claiming that because it's impossible for science to know everything about the personhood of a fetus, that they don't know anything.

From what I've seen, this is a fairly standard trick of 'religious' conservatives.  "There are holes in evolution, therefore 'intelligent design' is an equivalent alternative."  (A great deal of these 'holes' aren't even true either, but are also 'religious' conservatives misrepresenting the science, or stating outright falsehoods.)  "Evolution is just a theory."

It amazes me how many people who claim to be religious repeatedly and shamelessly violate the 8th Commandment. 

There is also a big difference between a newborn and a 50 year old, but they are both human.  Same thing with a newborn and a 1 second old unborn baby.

On the second part, not according to the science.  You can believe any falsehood you like, that doesn't make it true.

Conception is a process over the course of days unless you want to break it down further.

And the development of the fetus is a process over several months.

[DC Al Fine]

Welcome to America, where we are the one developed western nation where this is still an issue, apparently.

That's a good thing. At least a significant portion of our population still has a moral conscience.

I'm sure this is much more tied to the anti-learning anti-science attitude in America.

Since when does the question of when personhood begins have to do with being pro- or anti-science?  This is an ethical/moral issue, not a scientific one.

Only a person who doesn't understand the science could make a statement that ridiculous.

Only a person who doesn't understand science could think that a scientific definition of personhood is even in principle possible.

Maybe not a precise definition, but certainly a much more informed definition.  If you are claiming, for instance, that the experts on this can't say that there is a difference regarding the personhood between a 1 week old fetus and a baby, I'd say you're outright lying.  This holds true for a 10 week old fetus and several further weeks out as well.

The general argument I use with things like this is "Just because we don't know everything, it doesn't follow that we don't know anything."

It seems to me that is exactly what you are doing: claiming that because it's impossible for science to know everything about the personhood of a fetus, that they can't know anything.

From what I've seen, this is a fairly standard trick of 'religious' conservatives.  "There are holes in evolution, therefore 'intelligent design' is an equivalent alternative."  (A great deal of these 'holes' aren't even true either, but are also 'religious' conservatives misrepresenting the science, or stating outright falsehoods.)  "Evolution is just a theory."

It amazes me how many people who claim to be religious repeatedly and shamelessly violate the 8th Commandment. 

Adam, you keep accusing people of lying, and yet you haven't actually engaged with mine and TJ's argument. You'd do well not to accuse us of lying while knocking down a strawman in the same post.

The argument can be summarized as follows.

Science is observable, measureable and repeatable. It can therefore be used to learn information about what a fetus is like at a particular stage of development (e.g. developing a heartbeat at at X weeks or an ability to feel pain at Y weeks)

What we do with that information however is outside of the realm of science. You can design an observable, measurable, repeatable procedure to determine if a fetus meets a given definition of personhood, but not to determine the definition of personhood itself. That is a question of ethics and philosophy.