Americans' View on Abortion Consistently Contradictory

[Frodo]

And I have highlighted for jfern the section he continually ignores when going on a screed about how 'pro-choice' this country is:

Poll: Americans inconsistent on abortion

By NANCY BENAC
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- For all the recent tumult over abortion, one thing has remained surprisingly stable: Americans have proved extremely consistent in their beliefs about the procedure - and extremely conflicted in their views.

A solid majority long have felt that Roe v. Wade should be upheld. Yet most support at least some restrictions on when abortions can be performed. Most think having an abortion should be a personal choice. But they also think it is murder.

"Rock solid in its absolutely contradictory opinions" is how public opinion expert Karlyn Bowman describes the nation's mind-set.

If public opinion is stable, the political landscape is anything but.

The arrival of two new justices on the Supreme Court has stoked speculation about how abortion laws could be affected. Also, there has been a flurry of action at the state level to ban or sharply restrict access to the procedure.

source

[dazzleman]

Yes, it's very true that most Americans are ambivalent towards abortion.

I think most believe that overturning Roe vs. Wade would mean automatic outlawing of most abortions, and that's why a majority doesn't support overturning it.

Still, I think it's clear that most people don't regard abortion as just another medical procedure, like having a wart removed, and most people favor restrictions on it that are far more severe than those permitted under Roe vs. Wade.

[opebo]

I think most believe that overturning Roe vs. Wade would mean automatic outlawing of most abortions, and that's why a majority doesn't support overturning it.

Why wouldn't the overturning of Roe V Wade mean the outlawing of abortion?  There are Republican majorities in both houses of congress, and a Republican president.  I think it is reasonable to assume they would make it illegal.

[DanielX]

I think most believe that overturning Roe vs. Wade would mean automatic outlawing of most abortions, and that's why a majority doesn't support overturning it.

Why wouldn't the overturning of Roe V Wade mean the outlawing of abortion?  There are Republican majorities in both houses of congress, and a Republican president.  I think it is reasonable to assume they would make it illegal.

Because any overturning of Roe v. Wade would leave abortion in its pre-1972 state, in which individual states determined its fate. It was legal in several states, including California, before 1972; presumably different states will have different laws.

[Democratic Hawk]

A solid majority long have felt that Roe v. Wade should be upheld. Yet most support at least some restrictions on when abortions can be performed. Most think having an abortion should be a personal choice. But they also think it is murder.

I think that just about sums it up. I'd have thought some middle ground was close to the mark. Something along the lines of restricted legal abortion, for example, life of the mother; in cases of rape and incest; or within the first-trimester

What would surprise me, however, is if a majority favored partial-birth abortions (beyond the exception of maternal life)

I sometimes wonder, if Roe vs Wade was struck down, who would be the political beneficiaries? As an issue, at this point in time, it favors the GOP but if a majority thought it being struck down was a step too far, it might favor the Democrats- though, it would vary from state to state

In essence, Roe v Wade is one extreme of the debate and the South Dakota law, the other. I, for one, don't subscribe to either. I find the whole idea of abortion being a matter of 'choice' an anathema, but then so is the thought of a woman having to give birth to a rapist's baby

And as long the blowhards on either side dominate the debate, is it any wonder many folk don't know their heads from their arses? That's when you get contrary views on the issue

Dave

[TheresNoMoney]

Yes, most people support some restrictions on abortion (and rightfully so in my opinion) but they still don't want to see it criminalized (as in South Dakota).

Most people believe in privacy rights and the right of a woman to control her body, even if they find the practice of abortion horrifying.

[??????????]

I think most believe that overturning Roe vs. Wade would mean automatic outlawing of most abortions, and that's why a majority doesn't support overturning it.

Why wouldn't the overturning of Roe V Wade mean the outlawing of abortion?  There are Republican majorities in both houses of congress, and a Republican president.  I think it is reasonable to assume they would make it illegal.

Because any overturning of Roe v. Wade would leave abortion in its pre-1972 state, in which individual states determined its fate. It was legal in several states, including California, before 1972; presumably different states will have different laws.

It was legal in Utah as well, interestingly enough.

[Democratic Hawk]

I think most believe that overturning Roe vs. Wade would mean automatic outlawing of most abortions, and that's why a majority doesn't support overturning it.

Why wouldn't the overturning of Roe V Wade mean the outlawing of abortion?  There are Republican majorities in both houses of congress, and a Republican president.  I think it is reasonable to assume they would make it illegal.

Because any overturning of Roe v. Wade would leave abortion in its pre-1972 state, in which individual states determined its fate. It was legal in several states, including California, before 1972; presumably different states will have different laws.

It was legal in Utah as well, interestingly enough.

If Roe vs Wade was overturned and it once again became a matter for the states to decide, which I happen to agree with, would pre-1972 state laws be valid?

Dave

[DanielX]

I think most believe that overturning Roe vs. Wade would mean automatic outlawing of most abortions, and that's why a majority doesn't support overturning it.

Why wouldn't the overturning of Roe V Wade mean the outlawing of abortion?  There are Republican majorities in both houses of congress, and a Republican president.  I think it is reasonable to assume they would make it illegal.

Because any overturning of Roe v. Wade would leave abortion in its pre-1972 state, in which individual states determined its fate. It was legal in several states, including California, before 1972; presumably different states will have different laws.

It was legal in Utah as well, interestingly enough.

If Roe vs Wade was overturned and it once again became a matter for the states to decide, which I happen to agree with, would pre-1972 state laws be valid?

Dave

Probably at least at first, until new laws are passed. It might depend on how Roe V. Wade is overturned, though. Ask Emsworth, he's more in the know legalistically then I am.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There are several states that have passed "trigger" laws that would go into effect to ban or restrict abortion should Roe v. Wade be overturned.  Others have passed laws since Roe that would explicitly keep it legal.  Then there are those that are on murky ground where a lot would likely depend on how a decision that overturned Roe was written.  Interestingly, South Carolina is one of the states that has laws on the books that explicity make abortion legal.  That's largely due to the unrelated fact that we overhauled our code of laws in 1976, so they made explict at that time the limitations on abortion laws that were in place due to Roe.

[Gabu]

The main thing I get from this is that most Americans honestly don't care about abortion enough to form a coherent, internally consistent stance on it.

[ilikeverin]

The main thing I get from this is that most Americans honestly don't care about abortion enough to form a coherent, internally consistent stance on it.

Not necessarily.  For instance, Ebowed finds my supposedly conflicting views on abortion, marijuana, gay marriage, etc. incoherent and inconsistent.  But I find them perfectly in tune with another and harmonious.  It all depends on one's point of view.

[opebo]

I think most believe that overturning Roe vs. Wade would mean automatic outlawing of most abortions, and that's why a majority doesn't support overturning it.

Why wouldn't the overturning of Roe V Wade mean the outlawing of abortion?  There are Republican majorities in both houses of congress, and a Republican president.  I think it is reasonable to assume they would make it illegal.

Because any overturning of Roe v. Wade would leave abortion in its pre-1972 state, in which individual states determined its fate. It was legal in several states, including California, before 1972; presumably different states will have different laws.

No, I'm saying the Republicans in congress and the president would simply pass a national ban.

[Gabu]

The main thing I get from this is that most Americans honestly don't care about abortion enough to form a coherent, internally consistent stance on it.

Not necessarily.  For instance, Ebowed finds my supposedly conflicting views on abortion, marijuana, gay marriage, etc. incoherent and inconsistent.  But I find them perfectly in tune with another and harmonious.  It all depends on one's point of view.

According to the poll, "Most think having an abortion should be a personal choice. But they also think it is murder."  Unless most Americans think that murder should be a personal choice, I don't see how anyone could call this anything but contradictory.

I still feel that abortion is probably a lot like gay marriage, in that it's a "hot button" issue among those who actually care, but the pool of those who don't particularly care is much larger.

[angus]

A solid majority long have felt that Roe v. Wade should be upheld. Yet most support at least some restrictions on when abortions can be performed. Most think having an abortion should be a personal choice. But they also think it is murder.

this isn't a contradiction.  First, the subset of all people polled who think abortion is murder is not the same as the subset as those who view it as a personal a choice.  that's important to keep in mind.  Second, since both views represent majorities, we canclude that the two subsets are nonvoid.  But this still isn't a contradiction.  It is possible that some may have values that trump the imperative not to commit murder.  I'm not saying such views are logical, but I am saying that you cannot conclude based on the data you present that there is any contradiction. 

Gabu, It's not like asking whether you like cats, and a majority say no, then turning around and asking whether you dislike cats, and a majority say yes.  That would be a contradiction, at least among the non-null intersection of the two majority subsets.  But the data only suggest two questions are asked:  Is abortion murder?  Should abortion of a fetus be a personal choice?  It is possible someone says yes to both, honestly, and from the point of view that one has a right to commit murder.  This isn't intended to justify such a position, but to describe that it isn't necessarily a logical contradiction.  (Now, we obviously need a definition of murder here to have an intelligent discussion.  If one holds to the narrowest point of view that murder not only means killing, but also means illegal killing, then you may have a case that it's a contradiction.  But if one uses the term murder only to mean killing a human, then it's not a contradiction.)

[Gabu]

Gabu, It's not like asking whether you like cats, and a majority say no, then turning around and asking whether you dislike cats, and a majority say yes.  That would be a contradiction, at least among the non-null intersection of the two majority subsets.  But the data only suggest two questions are asked:  Is abortion murder?  Should abortion of a fetus be a personal choice?  It is possible someone says yes to both, honestly, and from the point of view that one has a right to commit murder.  This isn't intended to justify such a position, but to describe that it isn't necessarily a logical contradiction.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.  Is it that there is actually a group of Americans who feel that murder should be a personal choice?

[Brandon H]

The main thing I get from this is that most Americans honestly don't care about abortion enough to form a coherent, internally consistent stance on it.

Most Americans don't know enough or care enough about most issues to form a coherent, internally consistent stance on any issue.

[angus]

Define murder.  Define it exactly before I can answer.

[Gabu]

Define murder.  Define it exactly before I can answer.

Most Americans would probably define murder as "an unjust killing".

[angus]

okay, then we have three possibilities:  either there is a subset of those polled who either do not require justification for killing, or there is a subset of those polled who misunderstand the question, or there is a subset of those polled who have contradicted themselves.  Have I left anything out?  Doesn't really matter, since even with only these possibilities we can say that the view isn't necessarily a contradiction.

Part of the problem is that the "source" listed isn't really the source of the data, but only the source of someone's take on the data.  I'm doing a search right now to try to find the polling data source.  Let me know if you have the actual questions and the responses.  Maybe we can then sort out whether there really is a contradiction.

[J. J.]

Actually, even in 1973, Bolton v. Doe, the companion case to Roe dealt with a Georgia law with fewer restrictions than the Texas law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Bolton

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

WTF? Roe isn't even law of the land any more, the weaker Planned Parenthood vs. Casey ruling that replaced it is. Of course there are restrictions, partial birth abortions were banned even in the case to save the mother's life.

As for restrictions, California voters rejected parental notification.

[Gabu]

okay, then we have three possibilities:  either there is a subset of those polled who either do not require justification for killing

Which is not terribly likely.

or there is a subset of those polled who misunderstand the question

Possibly, but the questions seem pretty unambiguous: "Is abortion murder?" and "Should abortion be a personal choice?"

even with only these possibilities we can say that the view isn't necessarily a contradiction.

Is it necessarily a contradiction?  No.  Would it appear that the most likely explanation for it is that it is a contradiction?  I would say so, yes.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This talks about the restrictions already in place on abortion. But that isn't enough for the anti-abortionists, they want want to ban it altogether (like South Dakota basically did). We will not cooperate with extremists. End of story.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/12/195433/116

[Gabu]

This talks about the restrictions already in place on abortion. But that isn't enough for the anti-abortionists, they want want to ban it altogether (like South Dakota basically did). We will not cooperate with extremists. End of story.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/12/195433/116

It seems to me that, if someone feels that abortion is murder, it would kind of make sense that counselling and waiting periods would not be enough for that person.

Not that I agree with the notion that abortion in general is murder, but you can't really expect people who feel that a baby is being murdered when an abortion occurs to be fine with simply making there be a few roadblocks on the way to getting an abortion.

There really is no such thing as acceptable compromise on abortion if you view it as murder, which is why I've taken it upon myself to never, ever, ever debate abortion, because it goes absolutely nowhere.