Gallup- Statistics about the "fetal position"- 5/08

[Person Man]

[7,052,770]

Hmmm, I've heard the "73% of Republicans are pro-choice" line quite a bit.  Must be using a different definition of "pro-choice" than this poll did.

[ilikeverin]

Numbers don't bode well for the pro-choice movement in the future.

[ChrisFromNJ]

Numbers don't bode well for the pro-choice movement in the future.

Why is that?

[Albus Dumbledore]

I think the numbers indicate the opposite with it being the older generation that's the most pro-life.

[Person Man]

I think the numbers indicate the opposite with it being the older generation that's the most pro-life.

Exactly. This poll really illustrates that the youth in this country aren't so "pro-life" as so many conservatives want to think. In fact, the demographic pattern by age is uniform under 55 years of age.

[ilikeverin]

Everyone's completely ignoring the fact that young people are, statistically speaking, supposed to be more liberal than older people.  In this poll, they're not (save the 55+ crowd, but I consider them less telling than the 35-54 group).  So, when we go through our inevitable conservativization process, we'll end up more pro-life than previous cohorts.

[12th Doctor]

I think the numbers indicate the opposite with it being the older generation that's the most pro-life.

Polls used to show the American public being 69% pro-choice.  No matter where the movement has occurred, this is pretty good news for the pro-life crowd and shows a major shift in opinions.

[Person Man]

Everyone's completely ignoring the fact that young people are, statistically speaking, supposed to be more liberal than older people.  In this poll, they're not (save the 55+ crowd, but I consider them less telling than the 35-54 group).  So, when we go through our inevitable conservativization process, we'll end up more pro-life than previous cohorts.

I don't think it works that way. People generally keep their opinions for life, the reason young people may seem more liberal is simply that new ideas are more available. We will undergo a conservatization process, but it will be a relative one, not relating to our own changes.
 

I think the numbers indicate the opposite with it being the older generation that's the most pro-life.

Polls used to show the American public being 69% pro-choice.  No matter where the movement has occurred, this is pretty good news for the pro-life crowd and shows a major shift in opinions.

Not Really, it used to be in the high-50s in the early 90s and then dropped to around 48ish percent in the 01/02 era. Now, it appears that the numbers have stabilized, if not reversed.



...and abortion isn't the hot topic issue it used to be...



All that said, I wouldn't start having fish on Friday just yet.

[7,052,770]

I think the numbers indicate the opposite with it being the older generation that's the most pro-life.

Polls used to show the American public being 69% pro-choice.  No matter where the movement has occurred, this is pretty good news for the pro-life crowd and shows a major shift in opinions.

I would bet $1000 that there has been no real shift on the issue, and that the polls that show differing results are using definitions of "pro-life" and "pro-choice"

For example, does one have to believe that abortion should be totally illegal to be pro-life?  Does one have to always support the legality of abortion to be pro-choice?  Almost everyone is in the middle of those two positions, so there is an arbitrary line that separates the two camps, and you can draw that line wherever you want and wildly manipulate the results.

[War on Want]

I am probably more pro-choice than pro-life but I never understood why anyone would give a sh**t about this at all.

[Person Man]

...and probably our generation is perhaps more pro-choice because a lot of the pro-life elements in our generation comes from 1st generation Mexicans who are very Catholic and very pro-life and by the time they are 3rd generation, they generally are not any more pro-life than the rest of the population.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I am probably more pro-choice than pro-life but I never understood why anyone would give a sh**t about this at all.

Yeah, your right, innocent children are being slaughtered, why should this be an issue?

[War on Want]

I am probably more pro-choice than pro-life but I never understood why anyone would give a sh**t about this at all.

Yeah, your right, innocent children are being slaughtered, why should this be an issue?

Oh yes because obiously embyros are innocent children!

[DownWithTheLeft]

I am probably more pro-choice than pro-life but I never understood why anyone would give a sh**t about this at all.

Yeah, your right, innocent children are being slaughtered, why should this be an issue?

Oh yes because obiously embyros are innocent children!

Certainly much more scientifically certain than man-made global warming

[War on Want]

I am probably more pro-choice than pro-life but I never understood why anyone would give a sh**t about this at all.

Yeah, your right, innocent children are being slaughtered, why should this be an issue?

Oh yes because obiously embyros are innocent children!

Certainly much more scientifically certain than man-made global warming

Because a 17 year old kid knows more about Global Warming, than a climatologist.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I am probably more pro-choice than pro-life but I never understood why anyone would give a sh**t about this at all.

Yeah, your right, innocent children are being slaughtered, why should this be an issue?

Oh yes because obiously embyros are innocent children!

Certainly much more scientifically certain than man-made global warming

Because a 16 year old kid knows more about Global Warming, than a climatologist.

1.) I'm not 16
2.) Climatologists (really scientist not Al Gore and his cronies) are split on the issue pretty evenly

[minionofmidas]

lmao.

[7,052,770]

I am probably more pro-choice than pro-life but I never understood why anyone would give a sh**t about this at all.

Yeah, your right, innocent children are being slaughtered, why should this be an issue?

Oh yes because obiously embyros are innocent children!

Certainly much more scientifically certain than man-made global warming

Because a 16 year old kid knows more about Global Warming, than a climatologist.

1.) I'm not 16
2.) Climatologists (really scientist not Al Gore and his cronies) are split on the issue pretty evenly

Proof that you're full of sh**t.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I am probably more pro-choice than pro-life but I never understood why anyone would give a sh**t about this at all.

Yeah, your right, innocent children are being slaughtered, why should this be an issue?

Oh yes because obiously embyros are innocent children!

Certainly much more scientifically certain than man-made global warming

Because a 16 year old kid knows more about Global Warming, than a climatologist.

1.) I'm not 16
2.) Climatologists (really scientist not Al Gore and his cronies) are split on the issue pretty evenly

Proof that you're full of sh**t.

This is nothing but proof your really digging, the article does not show a clear consensus and its from 2004

[7,052,770]

I am probably more pro-choice than pro-life but I never understood why anyone would give a sh**t about this at all.

Yeah, your right, innocent children are being slaughtered, why should this be an issue?

Oh yes because obiously embyros are innocent children!

Certainly much more scientifically certain than man-made global warming

Because a 16 year old kid knows more about Global Warming, than a climatologist.

1.) I'm not 16
2.) Climatologists (really scientist not Al Gore and his cronies) are split on the issue pretty evenly

Proof that you're full of sh**t.

This is nothing but proof your really digging, the article does not show a clear consensus and its from 2004

When there are 0 peer-reviewed scientific articles disagreeing that humanity is the main cause of global warming, that's a pretty strong blow to the "there is no consensus belief".  Because, ya know, if scientists were "split pretty evenly" then there would be close to half going each way.  Even if 10% of the articles cast doubt, I would say that more research is needed to be sure.

And the fact that this is 4 years old just shows how sad it is that people like you are STILL denying it.

[dead0man]

What if the scientists that agree with you are only 90% sure? 

[Person Man]

What does Global Warming have to do with Abortion?

Why do people whine about having to do stuff about Global Warming, anyway? Isn't a good thing to invest in Alternative Energy so that consumers have more choice in how they power their lives? Isn't a good thing to fund the invention of new ideas and industries? Isn't it a good thing to use funds that are currently being used to subsidize one industry to subsidize NEW markets?

Although it would be cute if Republicans and Democrats could come up with seperate universal scientific formulas from which all of their scientific disagreements, from which comes their ideological and policy disagreements logically arises from.

I mean, they already have for the "soft" sciences, like philosophy and economics.

What if the scientists that agree with you are only 90% sure? 

Does it matter. 90% sure is "clear and convincing" evidcence. We are not trying prove a criminal case with this evidence, so this is sufficient.

I am probably more pro-choice than pro-life but I never understood why anyone would give a sh**t about this at all.

Yeah, your right, innocent children are being slaughtered, why should this be an issue?

Well, the state stopped slaughtering innocent children 3 years ago, when the Supreme Court banned the Juvenile Death Penalty. I' m sure some of those children were little demons, but at least one or two were innocent.

[minionofmidas]

Down, you've got a million dollar voice but a ten cent brain. And on the Internet, no one can hear you scream.

[Person Man]

Down, you've got a million dollar voice but a ten cent brain. And on the Internet, no one can hear you scream.

So, he should whore himself for $1,000,000.10?