More Americans “Pro-Life� Than “Pro-Choice� for First Time

[Pawn Power]

More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time
(http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx)

(since the stats started to be taken, that is)


PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.

What do y'all think accounts for the change?

[bellyscratch]

I thought that there were more pro-life there anyway. Not sure why its increased though

[Sean]

I blame the resurgence of backward fundamentalist religion on it. I blame that on crap like super right wing fake news networks. Actually, Fox News started in 1996!

[h0m0revolutionary]

I don't know how valid this is, but I read recently.. and can't for the life of me recall where, that catholics in America are having children at a faster rate than most other christian denominations and have been for some time.

I would imagine catholics - suscribing of course to the consistent life ethic (the opposition to all things which induce untimely death - euthanasia, abortion, unjust war etc) beocming greater in number would be one reason.

One of a few reasons though I image.. also growing Protestant unease with abortion is a notable phenomina in the US.

[Marx22]

Who do they actually poll? They barely tell us what state, what region, what gender of the people they asked (did they ask only men?), they poll in; for all we know, they asked this question to a bunch of right-wing religious nuts and people from the South. I can't stand when they say the "majority of Americans" believe in x and y but they never actually poll more than 1,000 people. Last time I checked, the US had 300+ million people, that is like .0000001 percent.

[Radical]

Polls usually mean nothing.

I would say the main cause to pro-life in America is down to religion.
Sadly half these people arent true Pro-Lifers. They're only Pro-Life when they want to be.

In my experience most so-called Pro-Lifers I've spoken to advocate the death sentance.

PS: I hate these Hypocrits

[Pawn Power]

I don't know how valid this is, but I read recently.. and can't for the life of me recall where, that catholics in America are having children at a faster rate than most other christian denominations and have been for some time.

I would imagine catholics - suscribing of course to the consistent life ethic (the opposition to all things which induce untimely death - euthanasia, abortion, unjust war etc) beocming greater in number would be one reason.

One of a few reasons though I image.. also growing Protestant unease with abortion is a notable phenomina in the US.

I don't think Catholicism is on the rise in the US. Most of the stats I've seen have the percentage of the US population at about the same as it was fifty years ago. If it has risen at all it would probably not because they are having a lot of kids, the hard christian fundamentalists have large families as well, but because of large numbers of Catholics immigrants. I tend to think Catholicism is on the down turn, at least in my area of the North East- tons of Catholic churches have closed.

Either way, I don't think that increase, if it even exists which I don't think it does, is large enough to account for the change in public opinion on abortion.

[Pawn Power]

Who do they actually poll? They barely tell us what state, what region, what gender of the people they asked (did they ask only men?), they poll in; for all we know, they asked this question to a bunch of right-wing religious nuts and people from the South. I can't stand when they say the "majority of Americans" believe in x and y but they never actually poll more than 1,000 people. Last time I checked, the US had 300+ million people, that is like .0000001 percent.


Polls usually mean nothing.

I would say the main cause to pro-life in America is down to religion.
Sadly half these people arent true Pro-Lifers. They're only Pro-Life when they want to be.

In my experience most so-called Pro-Lifers I've spoken to advocate the death sentance.

PS: I hate these Hypocrits


It is funny how many leftists are in denial about public opinion or the views of 'the masses.'

The fact is a lot of people are sexists, homophobic, and uninformed. This exists not because of anything innate but because of how society conditions us. This is what we have to fight.

[Il Medico]

I don't know how valid this is, but I read recently.. and can't for the life of me recall where, that catholics in America are having children at a faster rate than most other christian denominations and have been for some time.

Catholics have always had more children. This is because of the more general exception of sex in every day catholic families. Catholics tend to be the poorer of christian denominations in the U.S. Poorer people tend to be less up tight about sex. Plus, the protestant culture in America is based on Puritain morals. Puritain of course being famous for thier complete fear of any thing sexual, even dancing.

[Il Medico]

I don't know how valid this is, but I read recently.. and can't for the life of me recall where, that catholics in America are having children at a faster rate than most other christian denominations and have been for some time.

Catholics have always had more children. This is because of the more general exception of sex in every day catholic families. Catholics tend to be the poorer of christian denominations in the U.S. Poorer people tend to be less up tight about sex. Plus, the protestant culture in America is based on Puritan morals. Puritan of course being famous for their complete fear of any thing sexual, even dancing.

[Marx22]

It is funny how many leftists are in denial about public opinion or the views of 'the masses.'

I was pointing out the fact that many pollsters ask a small amount of people yet when they give out the results, they say the "majority of Americans", and never give out any specific detail on who they polled. I'm not in denial I'm only curious when they say the majority but only poll 500-1000 thousand people out of 300 million.


The fact is a lot of people are sexists, homophobic, and uninformed. This exists not because of anything innate but because of how society conditions us. This is what we have to fight.

Indeed.

[Audeamus]

The problem with this poll is that it attempts to place the respondents into two opposing, mutually exclusive camps. While the fact that more Americans identified themselves as "pro-life" is attention grabbing, most are really in the middle, and feel that abortion should be legal under some circumstances. Not that giving women the right to choose only in some circumstances is terribly better.

Also important to note here is that this phenomenon seems to be limited to those who call themselves Republicans or Republican-leaning. Given the fact that people are calling Obama "the most pro-choice President yet", it is hardly surprising that Republicans might polarize the issue.

[counterblast]

I doubt most people in America could even define pro-life and pro-choice.

But even aside from that fact; I don't find that statistic especially alarming or surprising.

[Revy]

Catholics have always had more children. This is because of the more general exception of sex in every day catholic families. Catholics tend to be the poorer of christian denominations in the U.S. Poorer people tend to be less up tight about sex. Plus, the protestant culture in America is based on Puritain morals. Puritain of course being famous for thier complete fear of any thing sexual, even dancing.

I think it has to do with Catholics being more strict on contraception than Protestants in general. e.g. the Monty Python sketch "every sperm is sacred".

Traditional Protestants, like traditional Catholics, support sex within marriage...and you'll see people like the Duggar family with 18 children, I think they're Baptist, they don't believe in contraception.

so any difference in the number of children is not due to having less sex.....that's a weird theory. And Catholics being less uptight about sex? Yeah, because priests can can do that, right? :blink:

[Revy]

I doubt most people in America could even define pro-life and pro-choice.

But even aside from that fact; I don't find that statistic especially alarming or surprising.

The truth behind the poll is that a majority (51%) call themselves "pro-life" but out of that group, there are more that say that they think it should be legal in some degree.

[pastradamus]

Nothing shocking with the amount of terrible media and information sources in America these days. With the likes of the American Atheist Alliance having to meet in hiding in some places its not suprising people in the US feel this way.

[Rebel_Serigan]

I mean this sincerely when i say it. The idea of pro-life makes absolutely no sense. Now, I am not saying people don't have reasons but those still make absolutely no sense when applyed to the topic.
Main reason #1
"I don't want to ruin the potensial of life."
Refuted by...
"Awesome, then don't get an abortion."
Main Reason #2
"Blah,blah,blah, God said so"
Refuted by...
"Not everyone believes in your God the same way you do. Also, if you don't like it don't get an abortion."
Main Reason #3
"The methods they use to remove the fetus is disgusting"
Refuted by...
"Indeed it is, in that case, don't get an abortion."

We are Pro-CHOICE not pro-death. The people who are pro-life have no argument, they only are trying to restric a choice, and last I remember that is against the fundemental ideals of America.

[Pawn Power]

I was pointing out the fact that many pollsters ask a small amount of people yet when they give out the results, they say the "majority of Americans", and never give out any specific detail on who they polled. I'm not in denial I'm only curious when they say the majority but only poll 500-1000 thousand people out of 300 million.


Gallup usually polls in the thousands and the questions are usually coupled with many others.

[Pawn Power]

The problem with this poll is that it attempts to place the respondents into two opposing, mutually exclusive camps. While the fact that more Americans identified themselves as "pro-life" is attention grabbing, most are really in the middle, and feel that abortion should be legal under some circumstances. Not that giving women the right to choose only in some circumstances is terribly better.

Also important to note here is that this phenomenon seems to be limited to those who call themselves Republicans or Republican-leaning. Given the fact that people are calling Obama "the most pro-choice President yet", it is hardly surprising that Republicans might polarize the issue.

If you read the rest of the article in the link you will see that they do ask those other questions involving legality- should abortion be legal, illegal, in all circumstances?, etc. And yes people are mostly in the middle. Though is was not in this poll, even people who say abortion should be illegal in all circumstances do not necessarily think there should be punitive action taken against women who brake the hypothetical law, or that they don't know what the punishment should be. They just think its wrong and should be outlawed.

But my reason for posting this wasn't that it is shocking or that it was necessarily the most telling question on the issues, but to raise the question as to why is there a major shift, in such a short period of time, of Americans identifying themselves as "pro-life"? A year ago 50 % people identified themselves as "pro-choice" and 44 % as "pro-life," now it is reversed, 42 % and 51 % respectively.

[Sasha]

havent read all the reply's but that poll is warped.
the poll options was basicly present as "are you pro-life or not?"
to wich people will say: euhm, i'm not pro-death so sure...

aperently, although the number did went down a small bit, a mayority of the american population still supports some form of reproductive freedom rights wheter its from only abortion it the first few weeks till complete pro choice.

[Pawn Power]

havent read all the reply's but that poll is warped.
the poll options was basicly present as "are you pro-life or not?"
to wich people will say: euhm, i'm not pro-death so sure...



The exact question was: With respect to the abortion issues, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?

[gorillafuck]

That sounds really straightforward:(

Yikes.

[Klaatu]

As an American, please let me state the obvious: it is actually possible to be both pro-life AND pro-choice.
That is, a pro-choice person does not really want to have to have the abortion, but must, out of some urgent necessity. Pro-choice is not pro-death!

Perhaps we should just change the labels to pro-choice AND anti-choice, in order to better understand the parameters involved.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

The pro-choice movement needs a new argument. People inherently value human life, and when a fetus can feel pain, it becomes an issue for many people. When it comes to issues of human life, people will inconvenience others to support that end. I can see abortion being restricted to a time-frame in the near future.

It's disturbing to me whenever freedom is restricted, but I really don't know how to respond to pro-lifers anymore. I'm vegetarian. Causing harm to another being isn't legitimate in my view. A fetus can feel pain at a certain point. I'm kind of stuck on how to maneuver in this circumstance. People certainly can't harm others just because it's convenient for them. The person also choose to have sex knowing the consequences (in most cases).

Ethical cases always disturb me. It's disturbing that people care so much about abortion when there are plenty of more important issues that have similar if not more severe ethical implications. That being said, it doesn't throw this issue off the table.

I'm just not convinced so I remain pro-choice. Something about restricting a woman's body just seems fundamentally unacceptable.

[Klaatu]

You are on target. This is such a conundrum, that I doubt it will ever be resolved. But perhaps it can be,
when it becomes technologically feasible to remove the fetus from woman A and transfer it into woman B,
without harm nor consequence.

There are many possibilities for compromise also, if people would try to reach common ground on this, and
not literally kill each other over it, as is actually done here in the U.S. from time to time. :crying:

[Il Medico]

I think it has to do with Catholics being more strict on contraception than Protestants in general. e.g. the Monty Python sketch "every sperm is sacred".
Monty Python is funny as hell.


Traditional Protestants, like traditional Catholics, support sex within marriage...and you'll see people like the Duggar family with 18 children, I think they're Baptist, they don't believe in contraception.Yes, however, my point was more based on class rather then religion. Baptist, at least in the south, tend to be poor as well. The rich have always been more uptight about sex then the poor.


so any difference in the number of children is not due to having less sex.....that's a weird theory. And Catholics being less uptight about sex? Yeah, because priests can can do that, right? :blink:I mean the lay people. I have been both a Protestant and a Catholic, Catholics are more open and accepting of sexuality (hetero that is).

EDIT: To PawnPower's question, Pro-Choice.

[9]

I don't think polling Americans on whether they are "pro-life" or "pro-choice" is sufficient because I strongly suspect that most don't understand the actual meanings of the terms. The poll should have asked whether or not they were opposed to the fact that abortion is legal. "Pro-life" is a disingenuous term, particularly when one considers that it is largely the so-called "pro-life" community who also advocate foreign occupation, capital punishment, torture, etc.

[Dust Bunnies]

Catholics have always had more children. This is because of the more general exception of sex in every day catholic families. Catholics tend to be the poorer of christian denominations in the U.S. Poorer people tend to be less up tight about sex.

As a person who knows many Catholics (my parents raised me Catholic but I have lost all faith in the religion) I will say that many are not on the poorer side and they do not have a lot of kids. The last time they had a lot of kids was the Baby Boom Era. Most families I know now only have 2-3 kids, there are some irregular ones, for example I know a family with 5 boys, but it is the oddball of the bunch. Catholic generally are in the middle, not poor, but not rich either, many tend to be office workers or petit-bourgeois.

When they polled 1000 Americans they didn't take into account where they did it, what region, etc. One town near me is filled with Republicans, Catholics, Protestants, and Pro-lifers. While my town is far more Liberal, Pro-Choice, and a mix of religions.

Though let's assume for the minute if all voting age people in the US were polled and Pro-Life did come out over Pro-Choice. I would not be surprised, the launch of Fox News in the 90's, the mass propaganda the Church has been sending out, many Americans went to Catholic School "Back in the day", if they can propagandize the students there, when they grow up they will have kids and raise them to be Catholic and Pro-Life usually. It seems that the Pro-Life movement has a perfect proxy (religion) to feed the masses while the Pro-Choice movement lack a good proxy to get across our message.

[Klaatu]

"Pro-life" is a disingenuous term, particularly when one considers that it is largely the so-called "pro-life"
community who also advocate foreign occupation, capital punishment, torture, etc.

This is exactly why they can be thought of as being shameless hypocrites.

But the Catholic Church does condemn the death penalty (they are the only religion which is consistent
on life and death) And they should put at least as much effort into outlawing capital punishment as they
do on abortion.

[thundertail19921]

This is sad, that people have failed to lose their bible roots and considered better ideas like pro-choice.

[mel]

I mean the lay people. I have been both a Protestant and a Catholic, Catholics are more open and accepting of sexuality (hetero that is).

That entirely depends on the branch of protestantism and how religious the catholics are. In america, my experience has been "not very". A lot of people are raised catholic, but never go to mass and don't really know where the church stands on a lot of issues. These people say they're catholics, but have absolutely normal views on contraception and protection. Many people who identify is christian also have pretty standard views on sexuality, it's a minority of people in the United States who remain virgins until marriage, for instance.

I disagree with you that Catholics are usually poorer than protestants, although if you can find a statistic to back that up I'd be on board. Obviously you are right that poorer people tend to have more kids. However, I think this has more to do with lack of education on and access to birth control than with bizarre religious views on protection. The fact of the matter is that poorer people are less educated about sexuality and have less access to birth control. The idea that "rich" people are more uptight about sex than poor people doesn't seem to me to have much weight. Wealthy people just have access to contraception, more education, and in the case of politicians and public figures, a "reputation" to uphold and sex is stigmatized across the voting population for a wide variety of reasons, few of which have much to do with how much money they have or their relationship to the means of production.

[JimmyJazz]

havent read all the reply's but that poll is warped.
the poll options was basicly present as "are you pro-life or not?"
to wich people will say: euhm, i'm not pro-death so sure...

It's been worded the same way since they've been asking it, so a point about how it is badly worded is not really relevant to a discussion of trends/changes:

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/qgpmcs1jxuwo2l6achm_cg.gif


Anyway, I think it's clear that the change has only to do with a changing perception of the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life", or the political/lobbying groups associated with them, since opinions about the actual issues have remained remarkably unchanged:

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/qg8phio020orbfpcihagma.gif

Edit: no, looking more closely at the second graph, there has indeed been a real change in opinions about the issue since '96. The "illegal in all" option dipped down to 12% in '96, and is now back up to 21-22% range, for example. So basically, there has been a real change since '96, but the longer graph shows that this merely represents a return to attitudes in '75, just after Roe. A disturbing regression to be sure, but not a new low, at least.

[YSR]

Let's not sit around and dispute the poll, because the fundamental gist is right on: we are losing the battle for the right to choose. This is nothing new nor is it anything surprising.

The complete arrogance of the Left since Roe v. Wade continues to astound me and make my quiver with rage. Ever since the Supreme Court upheld a woman's right to choose, leftists have largely abandoned the actual ideological struggle of confronting people and changing their viewpoints about abortion and have headed instead towards lobbying groups to keep Roe v Wade in effect. The Left abandoned what our real purpose is, which is to fight for and in solidarity with the common people, the working class, and decided that the way to keep abortion rights alive was to make sure that at least 5 out of 9 judges agreed with us. Also, periodically we attempted to get various state legislatures and Supreme Courts to uphold laws extending rights further. So maybe 1000 people, tops.

Meanwhile, the Right has been out there doing what we're supposed to be doing: organizing. They've been organizing the hell out of the working class, which is why the majority or close to the majority of the U.S. opposes a woman's right to choose. With the exception of grassroots groups who continue to fight for expanded access and build momentum for a pro-choice movement at the base, the Left just stopped organizing people and started organizing the state. This is the single biggest reason we are losing the battle for choice.

Ask yourself: when was the last time you saw a billboard supporting choice? When was the last time you saw someone just casually handing out literature about abortion rights? When was the last time you attended a protest at an anti-abortion think tank? Operation Rescue and their allies have even supplanted us using the tactics of one of the U.S. Left's greatest (near) victories, the Civil Rights movement! We're losing this battle because the official Left decided it didn't need those stupid workers on its side, just the lawmakers. It's time for revolutionaries to get into the street and be serious about building a movement that supports choice.

[Klaatu]

Jimmy Jazz,
Thanks for the charts!

YSR,
You are right on target. We cannot always rely on government to do the right thing.
Complacency has destroyed empires.

[Dimentio]

I don't know how valid this is, but I read recently.. and can't for the life of me recall where, that catholics in America are having children at a faster rate than most other christian denominations and have been for some time.

I would imagine catholics - suscribing of course to the consistent life ethic (the opposition to all things which induce untimely death - euthanasia, abortion, unjust war etc) beocming greater in number would be one reason.

One of a few reasons though I image.. also growing Protestant unease with abortion is a notable phenomina in the US.

I would say that the blame lies on the pro-choicers. They are holding on to a defensive position, while pro-lifers has constantly attacked. No one has won a war by being defensive. Since pro-lifers seem to believe more in their issue than pro-choicers, they appear as more passionate and could therefore sway those who haven't decided themselves yet.

[Pawn Power]

havent read all the reply's but that poll is warped.
the poll options was basicly present as "are you pro-life or not?"
to wich people will say: euhm, i'm not pro-death so sure...


Well you don't have to read all the applies but at least read the actual poll. The question was presented as, "With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider your self pro-choice or pro-life?"

It is very clear what is meant since they state "With respect to the abortion issue."

Certainly, the anti-choice movement has chosen "pro-life" as a strategic term which is useful in conforming opinion, however, in this context the poll is not wholly "warped" since these are the terms most understood by the public.

Yet another case of denial. :glare:

[GPDP]

This certainly is a worrying trend.

Funny how, in spite of all the celebratory circle jerking among liberals that change is coming because they managed to elect Obama, the country is going backwards in some respects.

But that's what we get when we leave the task of defending women's rights to the soft liberal left.

[Klaatu]

"Certainly, the anti-choice movement has chosen "pro-life" as a strategic term which is useful in conforming opinion..."

Yes, it is they who have chosen their identifying term. We cannot force them to use the term "anti-choice."
(Which is just what they are)

That begs the question: Is the accepted term "pro-choice" as effective in defining the (pro-choice) side?
I think a stronger term is needed. How about "pro-family" (family size, that is) or "pro-population limits"
or some benevolent slogan which suggests that the left is serious about controlling the world's exploding
population growth. "pro-choice" is weak and ineffectual in conveying such an important message to the
average person, since most people are concerned about runaway world population growth.

[Pawn Power]

That begs the question: Is the accepted term "pro-choice" as effective in defining the (pro-choice) side?
I think a stronger term is needed. How about "pro-family" (family size, that is) or "pro-population limits"
or some benevolent slogan which suggests that the left is serious about controlling the world's exploding
population growth. "pro-choice" is weak and ineffectual in conveying such an important message to the
average person, since most people are concerned about runaway world population growth.

This makes no sense. The whole point of the pro-choice movement is the protection of woman's right to the autonomy of her body. It has nothing to do with family or population control.

[Il Medico]

This makes no sense. The whole point of the pro-choice movement is the protection of woman's right to the autonomy of her body. It has nothing to do with family or population control.
Abortion has been proposed to help control population. However, unless it was voluntary I would not support such a measure. Pro-Choice is all about rights. A women has the right to decide whether or not to have a child. While, I believe that pregnancy prevention should be pushed more strongly by the left (as it is cheaper than abortion and having a child for poorer communities), I do not oppose the right for a women to get an abortion. I would, although, like to, as a man, at least be told of the choice before hand.

[Pawn Power]

Abortion has been proposed to help control population. However, unless it was voluntary I would not support such a measure. Pro-Choice is all about rights. A women has the right to decide whether or not to have a child. While, I believe that pregnancy prevention should be pushed more strongly by the left (as it is cheaper than abortion and having a child for poorer communities), I do not oppose the right for a women to get an abortion. I would, although, like to, as a man, at least be told of the choice before hand.

You are confused. Leftists are not advocating abortion rights to "help control population." Again, the focus is bodily autonomy.

Furthermore, I think you are also confused in regards to "pregnancy prevention." The religious moralists and liberals scoff at the number of abortions claiming that they need to decrease. However, the leftists and feminist position is that abortions should be wholly and freely available, not as a form of "birth control" to control population as you say, but for women to control their own bodies.

[Sarah Palin]

The catholic stance on the entire "baby subject" if you will, boggles my mind. On the one hand, NO NO NO YOU CAN'T GET AN ABORTION BECAUSE IT'S KILLING A BABY AND THAT'S BAD. And then they turn around and say contraceptives and condoms are a sin, so in being a "good" catholic, you can't practise safe sex.

[Pawn Power]

This trend has also been confirmed by PEW:

http://people-press.org/reports/images/513-2.gif

http://people-press.org/reports/images/513-5.gif

[MarxSchmarx]

This trend has also been confirmed by PEW:

http://people-press.org/reports/images/513-2.gif

http://people-press.org/reports/images/513-5.gif

The demographic breakdown is very helpful. In particular, it suggests the change in support is something of a fluke.

The biggest drop is consistently among older people, as in, really older people (50+).

It's a sociological fact that people of that age group tend to not change their minds.

Why, then, on this issue are they changing their minds? If the explanations others offered, like the complacency of the left w/ Roe v. Wide, the rise of catholics, etc..., the trend would be either consistent across all age groups or, if anything, in the opposite direction - young people should be more inclined to support banning abortion. But the data show the change is among the older people. So these explanations are wanting.

My guess is, to the extent that it is a real trend, what we're seeing is largely a statistical fluke, and/or that middle aged people are becoming more conservative as they age, as tends to happen. This is borne out by noting that the deepest drop in support is among elderly men, the whiter segments of which largely comprise the heart and soul of the American republican party today. To be sure, there is an overall soft/slow trend away from a pro-choice position, and probably a lot of that has to do with leftist complacently and demographics (lets face it, pro-choicers have less kids). But to the extent that any "dramatic" shift has ocurred it's mostly among the elderly, and a swallow does not a spring make.

[#FF0000]

I was pointing out the fact that many pollsters ask a small amount of people yet when they give out the results, they say the "majority of Americans", and never give out any specific detail on who they polled. I'm not in denial I'm only curious when they say the majority but only poll 500-1000 thousand people out of 300 million.

Because that's all you need to get an accurate result.

[TC]

Because that's all you need to get an accurate result.

Its all you need to get a *representative* result if your sample is itself *representative*, and the problem is that it is methodologically difficult to verify that a sample is in fact representative because the only way to determine what factors would contribute to disproportional results would be to take a larger poll! This too of course could introduce additional bias; the way election campaign polls are able to verify their methodology is in part because elections represent a 'total poll'. You routinely see the 'most respected' polling houses return significantly different results from each other even with election polls however, and with polls that cannot be nearly so easily verified, the extent of the problems are essentially indeterminable.

Social science methodology is incredibly complex and conclusions are frequently overstated. Simply put, its extremely hard to do right and there is a terrible amount of pressure and incentives to do it.

[Pawn Power]

The demographic breakdown is very helpful. In particular, it suggests the change in support is something of a fluke.

The biggest drop is consistently among older people, as in, really older people (50+).

It's a sociological fact that people of that age group tend to not change their minds.

Why, then, on this issue are they changing their minds? If the explanations others offered, like the complacency of the left w/ Roe v. Wide, the rise of catholics, etc..., the trend would be either consistent across all age groups or, if anything, in the opposite direction - young people should be more inclined to support banning abortion. But the data show the change is among the older people. So these explanations are wanting.

My guess is, to the extent that it is a real trend, what we're seeing is largely a statistical fluke, and/or that middle aged people are becoming more conservative as they age, as tends to happen. This is borne out by noting that the deepest drop in support is among elderly men, the whiter segments of which largely comprise the heart and soul of the American republican party today. To be sure, there is an overall soft/slow trend away from a pro-choice position, and probably a lot of that has to do with leftist complacently and demographics (lets face it, pro-choicers have less kids). But to the extent that any "dramatic" shift has ocurred it's mostly among the elderly, and a swallow does not a spring make.

Yes, good eye. The age gap is important to look at in all social questions. In this case the change in people over 50 is double that as those under 50.

Another telling demographic gap is between women under 50 (reproductive age) and those over 50. The change for women over fifty is quadruply that as those under. Women who don't "need" reproductive rights (because they can no long conceive) seem less likely to support them for others. Though, this might be stretch since the age gap is large for all genders.

[TC]

The demographic breakdown is very helpful. In particular, it suggests the change in support is something of a fluke.

The biggest drop is consistently among older people, as in, really older people (50+).

It's a sociological fact that people of that age group tend to not change their minds.

I'm sorry but calling that a 'sociological fact' (a borderline oxymoron) is ridiculous. Its also ageist.

One factor though may be that abortion is one of only a few rights that become less personally relevant the older one gets: Most women under 40 need access to abortion to live their lives securely, most women over 50 do not. Its a lot easier to demand that the state oppress populations that don't include you (or your partner).

[JimmyJazz]

Its all you need to get a *representative* result if your sample is itself *representative*, and the problem is that it is methodologically difficult to verify that a sample is in fact representative because the only way to determine what factors would contribute to disproportional results would be to take a larger poll! This too of course could introduce additional bias; the way election campaign polls are able to verify their methodology is in part because elections represent a 'total poll'. You routinely see the 'most respected' polling houses return significantly different results from each other even with election polls however, and with polls that cannot be nearly so easily verified, the extent of the problems are essentially indeterminable.

Social science methodology is incredibly complex and conclusions are frequently overstated. Simply put, its extremely hard to do right and there is a terrible amount of pressure and incentives to do it.

They base their sample size on the numbers needed for a random sample to become basically representative (representative within a margin of error). I agree that attempts to do representative sampling by getting quotas from each of a bunch of different demographics is incredibly dangerous, but random sampling really isn't that dangerous.

There could still be problems with random selection, for instance if they go off of phone numbers and rich homes have multiple phone lines they would be overrepresented. But over the 50+ years of scientific polling these problems have pretty much been taken care of, and polling is generally quite accurate.

I'm certainly not one to defend social science methodology at length (I've attacked it pretty viciously before, based on my own experience), but they do have things worked out on the statistics/sampling side by now.

[MarxSchmarx]

It's a sociological fact that people of that age group tend to not change their minds. I'm sorry but calling that a 'sociological fact' (a borderline oxymoron) is ridiculous. Its also ageist.Actually, no, it is not ridiculous, but there is strong evidence to back it up, starting with this paper:

Sears & Funk. Evidence of the Long-Term Persistence of Adults' Political Predispositions. Journal of Politics 61 (1, February): 1-28.

Just google it to see other studies that have basically come to the same conclusion.

I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that descriptions of broad trends are "ageist". And if repeatedly documented statistical relationships applied to social questions aren't "sociological facts", well, we obviously don't share a common discourse.



One factor though may be that abortion is one of only a few rights that become less personally relevant the older one gets: Most women under 40 need access to abortion to live their lives securely, most women over 50 do not. Its a lot easier to demand that the state oppress populations that don't include you (or your partner).Pawn power already made this point as well:


Women who don't "need" reproductive rights (because they can no long conceive) seem less likely to support them for others. Though, this might be stretch since the age gap is large for all genders.The consistency across genders is problematic, though implements of family planning are, to be fair, of concern to men as well.

The real problem with this analysis is that it doesn't explain an increase in the support of abortion among older people over time. Why would older women OF TODAY be more likely to support abortions than older women of yesteryear?

This, after all, is what this thread is about. If anything, one may reasonably expect the opposite as older women of today have enjoyed the benefit of legalized abortions during their reproductive years. I mean, sure, we could speculate that older women before tended to have a "grass is greener on the otherside" view and so were more likely to wish they had the choice of abortion, but frankly this is just pure speculation. So the trend still seems to be something of a statistical fluke, at least as it concerns older people.

[Il Medico]

You are confused. Leftists are not advocating abortion rights to "help control population." Again, the focus is bodily autonomy.
I am not confused, nor did I say leftist support such. But this was proposed back in the 90's. It was a capitalist effort to low the population of third world countries.


Furthermore, I think you are also confused in regards to "pregnancy prevention." The religious moralists and liberals scoff at the number of abortions claiming that they need to decrease. However, the leftists and feminist position is that abortions should be wholly and freely available, not as a form of "birth control" to control population as you say, but for women to control their own bodies.
I never said it was birth control (although having an abortion seems to be a pretty effective way of stopping having a kid) I merely suggested that we should help more people get contraception, because many poorer women could not afford to get an abortion and should not have to have a kid because of their inability to get birth control. I see no reason why there needs to be a decrease in abortions. If a woman wants one, she can have it.

[Pawn Power]

I am not confused, nor did I say leftist support such. But this was proposed back in the 90's. It was a capitalist effort to low the population of third world countries.

I never said it was birth control (although having an abortion seems to be a pretty effective way of stopping having a kid) I merely suggested that we should help more people get contraception, because many poorer women could not afford to get an abortion and should not have to have a kid because of their inability to get birth control. I see no reason why there needs to be a decrease in abortions. If a woman wants one, she can have it.

Uh, Okay. But we were talking about abortion in the context of the pro-choice movement which advocates choice as a right not because it is advantageous towards population control. Though, I see what you are saying.

[Klaatu]

"This makes no sense. The whole point of the pro-choice movement is the protection of woman's right to the autonomy of her body. It has nothing to do with family or population control."
My point was actually to back up and strengthen the woman's right to choose. (When you are fighting a war,
we use all options in your favor. My point was such.) Thanks.

[Klaatu]

"Women who don't "need" reproductive rights (because they can no long conceive) seem less likely to support them for others."
Good point. This is an example of "It don't affect me, so I don't care." (Fair-weather friends)

[hammer and sickle]

It all depends on what region you live in. I think states like Wisconsin,New York,Michigan etc. would be more Pro-Choice and states like Alabama,Georgia,Texas,Louisiana etc. would be more Pro-life.

[fiddlesticks]

This revelation is unfortunant but it fails to suprise me. I can believe fox news has a bit to do with this, because they do tend to report the so called news with a 30 lb tumor of their bias...I can't even fathom why there are people in the world that are so against pro-choice. (Refering to extremists such as the abortion clinic bomber and people who protest outside of clinics)

Abortions are the problem of the man and woman involved, if someone decides to keep or not keep a fetus has no affect on these strong pro-lifers and I dont understand why they would want to push their opinions, it just baffles me.

I shall end with an appropriate George Carlin quote-

"Conservatives want live babies, so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."

[Comrade Blaze]

This is so stupid I hate christian fundamentalists and their hypocrisy, it really ticks me off who do they think they are, telling others what they can and cant do?!

Because "god" told me you can't/can :confused:

Comrade Blaze

[mel]

This is so stupid I hate christian fundamentalists and their hypocrisy, it really ticks me off who do they think they are, telling others what they can and cant do?!

Because "god" told me you can't/can :confused:

Comrade Blaze

Way to bring the level of discourse in this thread down to a bare minimum. It is not clear that this is a result of christian fundamentalism since I don't believe religious preference was a part of the demographics in the poll. If it was, there's no evidence that there was a change in the overall number of christian fundamentalists that could account for this change in belief, and there is no evidence that it was christian fundamentalist arguments or influence that caused a change in the overall opinion of a nation.

In any case, since the most dramatic change in opinion was in where exactly the line between pro life and pro choice is drawn, which points more to a change in the public perception of what those words mean than in a change in actual beliefs.

[Module]

I would say that the blame lies on the pro-choicers. They are holding on to a defensive position, while pro-lifers has constantly attacked. No one has won a war by being defensive. Since pro-lifers seem to believe more in their issue than pro-choicers, they appear as more passionate and could therefore sway those who haven't decided themselves yet.I don't think that's true at all. Pro-lifers can sound more emotive because their argument is simply based upon emotion. What's the 'emotion' of pro-choice? Support women's right to choose? Which one's more important? The right to not be pregnant or the 'right to life'? The only effective way I can see pro-choicers directly arguing against pro-lifers is to dispute the idea that a 'fetus' is deserving of 'social rights'. To point out that 'pro-life' is just irrational emotion with no solid, consistent basis.
The very term 'pro-life' brings up a severe, emotional straw man that can't be ignored by pro-choicers because it won't be, and isn't ignored by everybody else; 'we're pro-life because they're anti-life'. Of course, the very term shows that they won't argue on equal, objective, terms with pro-choicers (and vice versa). It takes the battle to an emotional level which the pro-choicers can't win. It breaks down the communication between the two sides of argument which would make it harder for people to make a clear observation and comparison. Like I said - which is more important? Pregnancy or death? It's annoying as hell, but that's how it is. I don't think that the terms pro-choice and pro-life are helpful for pro-choicers in that sense (but I can't stop using it, obviously, because that's just what I call them! :p).

In any case, since the most dramatic change in opinion was in where exactly the line between pro life and pro choice is drawn, which points more to a change in the public perception of what those words mean than in a change in actual beliefs.The change in opinion about whether abortion to be illegal in all cases, no cases or under circumstances points to a change in "actual beliefs".

[mel]

The change in opinion about whether abortion to be illegal in all cases, no cases or under circumstances points to a change in "actual beliefs".

Earlier in the thread it was pointed out that the change in these particular categories was not a "new" change, they are at roughly the same levels they were some number of years ago, though they have seen a resurgence. The only thing which is at its highest levels are the broader categories. The long-term trend for "illegal in all" and "legal in all" has been much more static than the regular graph suggests. In addition "legal in all" still has a lead over "illegal in all" and both look to be at roughly the same levels as they were in 2005, 2002, 1985, and 1975. The pro life/pro choice graph does not reflect that these opinions have been static for quite some time, and what we can probably conclude from this is that moreso than usually in recent years people who maintain the position "legal in some" are calling themselves "pro life" instead of "pro choice", which suggests a change in the perceived meaning of the terms more than a long-term change in actual beliefs. While "legal in all" has been on a relatively steady decline since about 1992, (and this might be alarming), this is not a new change, and more people still believe that abortion should be "legal in all" than believe it should be "illegal in all". For the strictest definitions of pro-life and pro-choice, this means that more americans are still pro-choice.

[A_Ciarra]

Lot's of good comments in here on the issue.

I would just add that with the growing awareness of political corruption in the US, there does seem to be a rise in the numbers of people moving towards the Libertarian Party AND their overall collective views, which by and large are pretty hard core socially conservative.

In my view libertarians tend to be simplistic in the way they process issues. They tend to be driven by one overall issue, and run short on how to see beyond the Libertarian box. They tend to zero in on the corrupt Elites and their theft of the people's money (think taxes etc.) then sweep social issues under the rug (civil rights, poverty, mutual aid...). The odd thing is many Libertarians I know actually believe rather strongly in civil rights for women deep down, yet at the same time cling to Libertarian social conservatism because they just can't process that other political systems address theft by the Elites, as well as civil rights. While many of them might believe in pro-choice for women, but they are also being pressured to conform to traditional Libertarian conservatism (as most often happens when people become religious for example). They are constantly told that theft and tyranny from the government, is the only truly important issue out there! "Insane shit," if you ask me.
They are also told by people like Alex Jones that the pro-choice movement was a Rockefeller conspiracy to weaken the moral fiber of the country enabling "the Illuminati" to become much stronger. They end up viewing a pro-life stand (and voting that way) as a stand FOR women.

I can see these poll numbers picking up on the growing ranks of Libertarian community. I can also see this poll in it's own right, being propaganda from the socially conservative right wing to swing the population over via "social pressure."