Poll: Majority once again thinks abortion should be illegal in most or all circumstances

[Brett85]

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/12/reversal-in-wsjnbc-poll-majority-once-again-thinks-abortion-should-be-illegal-in-most-or-all-circumstances/

[itshappening]

The numbers "for any reason" are still too high, The monster's case might change that if the media covers it.

[Christian Liberty]

Last time I checked the majority, and a clear majority at that, supported legal abortion in the 1st trimester and making it illegal in the 2nd trimester.

[DamianTV]

Then the majority obviously has no problem with telling everyone else how they think they should live their lives. They're the ones that put the Dumb in Freedom.

[Zippyjuan]

Another interesting part of the poll results (besides the majority now favoring gay marriage):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/12/poll-gay-marriage_n_3070703.html

The NBC/WSJ poll also found that Americans were more than twice as likely to say they disagreed with Republicans on "their approach to social and cultural issues" than to agree with them. They were split about evenly on whether or not they agreed with the Democratic Party.

Full poll results: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/03/18/rel3a.pdf

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable view of people or groups in the news?
Teaparty down to 28% favorable.

67% have a disfavorable opinion of how Obama is handling the budget issue but Congress is up to 79% unfavorable.

Guns. Do you favor or not favor some restrictions on guns? 70% favored some restrictions. 12% said they should be illegal for everybody but police and military. 38% favored minor restrictions and 17% favored no restrictions.

Hmm. Must be a different poll. I was looking for more detail on the abortion question but don't see any questions on that issue in this poll. Will try again.

[Zippyjuan]

Anyhow, chart from link in the OP seems to cover it.


Americans aren’t becoming more pro-choice but they’re not really becoming more pro-life either.

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ab2.jpg

[DamianTV]

Proving once again that 80% of statistics are at least 50% bullshit. Alternatively, 50% of statistics are 80% bullshit.

[FrankRep]

Then the majority obviously has no problem with telling everyone else how they think they should live their lives. They're the ones that put the Dumb in Freedom.

The majority thinks Murder should be illegal. Statists!

[thoughtomator]

The vast majority is simply sick and tired of this issue, the last refuge of those who would turn a debate into an emotional screamfest. It's the perfect distraction issue, as all easy answers are catastrophically wrong in one case or another.

[Brett85]

The vast majority is simply sick and tired of this issue, the last refuge of those who would turn a debate into an emotional screamfest. It's the perfect distraction issue, as all easy answers are catastrophically wrong in one case or another.

Yeah, the Holocaust was just a distraction as well.

[Keith and stuff]

People see to change their views right before an election. That sucks hard for social conservatives and sucks for Republican candidates in general. It costs dozens of Republicans, if not many more, elections in November. It seems that all liberals have to do is run ads about it and people will agree with them.

[liberty2897]

//

[thoughtomator]

Yeah, the Holocaust was just a distraction as well.

I could not have proven my point more swiftly or eloquently.

[FrankRep]

I could not have proven my point more swiftly or eloquently.
The legality of Murder is not really a "distraction issue."

[thoughtomator]

The legality of Murder is not really a "distraction issue."

Indeed. However, the definition of murder gets rather murky in this context, as is how far one is willing to go in pursuit of the anti-abortion goal. Will a miscarriage come with risk of being charged with a capital crime? If not how does one prevent women from inducing their own miscarriages?

This is an issue with no definite solution even though mankind has faced it for millennia. Even the Bible, which is unambiguous on murder, treats various such situations differently depending on circumstance.

More than anything, abortion is the perfect wedge to make sure people with otherwise common interests are set at opposition to each other.

[Brett85]

Indeed. However, the definition of murder gets rather murky in this context, as is how far one is willing to go in pursuit of the anti-abortion goal. Will a miscarriage come with risk of being charged with a capital crime? If not how does one prevent women from inducing their own miscarriages?

That never happened prior to Roe v. Wade when abortion was mostly illegal.

[TheGrinch]

The legality of Murder is not really a "distraction issue."

It can be when there is virtually no possibility for a consensus on the divisive issue, outside of compromise similar to what we have now regarding late-term abortions in most places (though it would be a huge victory to ban second-term abortions as well, but you're just not going to convince women that it's completely out of theirs and/or their doctor's control. Rand was smart to realize this when talking about it.)

To compare it to the Holocaust is a loaded analogy, as this is clearly much more of a grey area to where libertarians don't even agree on it and the country is split. For one thing, one can be morally opposed to abortion, but be philosophically opposed to prohibition when nearly 1/2 the country still believes it should be legal. We've seen the consequences of legislating morality, most notably dangerous black markets...

This is kind of how I feel about it (even though I agree it is quite the hang up to have to ignore the murder of an unborn life part), but that doesn't sound at all like someone who endorses the likes of the holocaust. I can also see why a woman would think it to be her choice, as misguided as I think that is, particularly once you can actually see a healthy human-like form is unfathomable... But let's not feed the divisiveness with emotionally-laden hyperbole.

[Brett85]

To compare it to the Holocaust is a loaded analogy, as this is clearly much more of a grey area to where libertarians don't even agree on it and the country is split.

If anything, it's probably a loaded analogy to compare the Holocaust to abortion. Abortion is over 5 times worse than the Holocaust, since about 11 million people were murdered during the Holocaust, and 55 million people have been murdered as a result of abortion.

[DamianTV]

... and those unwanted children that would have been aborted all grow up to lead very happy and productive lives. In fact, they are happier than children that are planned. Those unwanted children tend to exceed wanted children in nearly every trend. They're smarter. They commit less crimes. They dont become leeches on the Welfare System. They are our cream of the crop!

/total sarcasm

[FrankRep]

... and those unwanted children that would have been aborted all grow up to lead very happy and productive lives. In fact, they are happier than children that are planned. Those unwanted children tend to exceed wanted children in nearly every trend. They're smarter. They commit less crimes. They dont become leeches on the Welfare System. They are our cream of the crop!

/total sarcasm

This abortion survivor is happy to be alive.


Gianna Jessen: Abortion Survivor (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ)



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ

[Christian Liberty]

To compare it to the Holocaust is a loaded analogy, as this is clearly much more of a grey area to where libertarians don't even agree on it and the country is split. For one thing, one can be morally opposed to abortion, but be philosophically opposed to prohibition when nearly 1/2 the country still believes it should be legal. We've seen the consequences of legislating morality, most notably dangerous black markets...



The GOP mostly sucks at actually being consistent on abortion, and most of them also support mass murder in Iraq, Syria, and who knows where else. And I agree that there is only so much government can actually do about abortion. Granted, I do think they are able to reduce it SOME, or at least punish a few offenders but not very much. For those reasons, I'm not going to discount an otherwise good candidate who gets this one wrong (I'd have a really, REALLY hard time with someone who supported Roe v Wade though, that means they get abortion AND Federalism wrong, even still it would probably depend on the situation, luckily most libertarians are smart enough to leave this one at the state level, regardless of their personal views). Even still, I still say, if it creates a black market, who cares? Most libertarians pride themselves in not being utilitarians. While I am no fan of just generic "Legislating morality", I see this as very different from enforcing laws against gay partnerships, sodomy, prostitiution, drug use, gluttony, or pretty much any other "Vice" of any level. As Lynsander Spponer said, vices are the actions by which a man harms himself or his own property, crimes are the actions by which man harms someone else or someone else's property.

Victimless "Vices" should not be treated as crimes, not because enforcing laws against them is ineffective (Even though it is) but because its immoral to use violence to stop someone from hurting themselves.

Acts of violence against other people should be treated as crimes, not because enforcing laws against them is particularly effective (It probably isn't, in this case) but because it is moral to use violence to stop someone from hurting someone else, and it is immoal not to do so.

As for the Holocaust, I think it is a somewhat bad comparison because in the Holocaust, the government itself was torturing and killing the people, while abortion is both a large group of people committing more moderate amounts of murder when compared to Hitler, not always torturous (Although sometimes it is), and much, much harder to actually stop.

If anything, it's probably a loaded analogy to compare the Holocaust to abortion. Abortion is over 5 times worse than the Holocaust, since about 11 million people were murdered during the Holocaust, and 55 million people have been murdered as a result of abortion.

11 million people were tortured by one person's orders. 55 million children were killed by millions of different mothers, sometimes but not always through agony, and its much easier to stop a regular Holocaust than an abortion Holocaust. Make of that one what you will...


... and those unwanted children that would have been aborted all grow up to lead very happy and productive lives. In fact, they are happier than children that are planned. Those unwanted children tend to exceed wanted children in nearly every trend. They're smarter. They commit less crimes. They dont become leeches on the Welfare System. They are our cream of the crop!

/total sarcasm

Doesn't matter. I don't believe welfare should exist, but aside from that, murder is murder.

[/QUOTE]

[TheGrinch]

Can't really disagree with the above.

I was really just pointing out that we need to stop with this "you're supporting murder (even holocaust)!" or "you hate women" on the other side. It's as if some are just so set in their ways on this issue that they refuse to even acknowledge that the other side has legitimate reasons (even if you disagree) to feel the way they do. Some just always jump straight towards assuming alterior motives (or at least painting that way), when I seriously doubt that anything more than a minscule percentage have a real vested interest in the issue presently.

You don't have to agree with people to be able to view an issue objectively and see where they're coming from. We will get nowhere with abortion when even the terms imply "anti-choice" or "anti-life" when that couldn't be further from the truth.

[Christian Liberty]

Can't really disagree with the above.

I was really just pointing out that we need to stop with this "you're supporting murder (even holocaust)!" or "you hate women" on the other side. It's as if some are just so set in their ways on this issue that they refuse to even acknowledge that the other side has legitimate reasons (even if you disagree) to feel the way they do. Some just always jump straight towards assuming alterior motives (or at least painting that way), when I seriously doubt that anything more than a minscule percentage have a real vested interest in the issue presently.

You don't have to agree with people to be able to view an issue objectively and see where they're coming from. We will get nowhere with abortion when even the terms imply "anti-choice" or "anti-life" when that couldn't be further from the truth.

I'm extremely biased on the issue and I will admit to sometimes getting angry over it. I make no claim to be "Fair and balanced" in that regard.

Even still, I can admit I understand their reasoning, although that usually (Eviction theory is a possible exception to this, although I have other problems with that theory that I'll touch on some other time) entails denial of human exceptionalism, which I think is essential for libertarianism to actually work. Otherwise, killing an animal could be considered a violation of the NAP.

[Brett85]

I was really just pointing out that we need to stop with this "you're supporting murder (even holocaust)!" or "you hate women" on the other side. It's as if some are just so set in their ways on this issue that they refuse to even acknowledge that the other side has legitimate reasons (even if you disagree) to feel the way they do.

Generally speaking I agree that it's important to respect the opinions that others have and to understand that they have legitimate reasons for believing what they believe. But on this particular issue, I have absolutely no respect at all for the pro legal abortion position. If someone came up to you and said that it should be legal to murder three year olds, would you respect that point of view and understand where that person is coming from? That's just the way I view the abortion issue. It's absolutely no different from murdering someone who's been born.

[mz10]

... and those unwanted children that would have been aborted all grow up to lead very happy and productive lives. In fact, they are happier than children that are planned. Those unwanted children tend to exceed wanted children in nearly every trend. They're smarter. They commit less crimes. They dont become leeches on the Welfare System. They are our cream of the crop!

/total sarcasm

Oh okay. So lets just kill them all and put them out of their misery.

For someone who claims to be a "libertarian" (and presumably a supporter of the non-aggression principle), you have an extremely dystopian worldview

[DamianTV]

Oh okay. So lets just kill them all and put them out of their misery.

For someone who claims to be a "libertarian" (and presumably a supporter of the non-aggression principle), you have an extremely dystopian worldview

You did read the big "Sarcasm" point there, right?

:rolleyes:

[mz10]

You did read the big "Sarcasm" point there, right?

:rolleyes:

Yes. The "sarcasm" implied that you believe the opposite to be true, that children who get aborted tend to be from poor families and would go on to live difficult lives because they are unwanted. I have heard that line of justification a lot, and I find it sickening, to think that you should pre-emptively kill someone to put them out of their future misery.

[mz10]

I respect people who are pro-choice because they find it impractical to regulate abortion. What I don't respect is the idea that it is somehow "a woman's right" or that pro-lifers "want the gov't telling us what to do." Anyone who believes that does not understand libertarianism and does not understand the non-aggression principle. Ron Paul has said that himself.

[otherone]

In regards to the OP, the majority voted for Robamney, proving conclusively that democracy doesn't work.

[Brett85]

I respect people who are pro-choice because they find it impractical to regulate abortion.

You could probably say that it's impractical to ban rape as well, since only 3% of rapists actually end up getting convicted for rape. The people who say that it's impractical to ban abortion should also be in favor of legalizing rape since the laws that we have against rape don't work 97% of the time.

I understand that you're pro life. I'm just referring to the people who make this particular argument.

[thoughtomator]

I'm not pro-choice, I just don't think adding additional violence - from the most merciless of perpetrators, government - will help reduce the overall level of harm. I believe the ONLY long term solution is a cultural change, and there is nothing that can or should be done by means of government to achieve that end.

[Brett85]

I'm not pro-choice, I just don't think adding additional violence - from the most merciless of perpetrators, government - will help reduce the overall level of harm. I believe the ONLY long term solution is a cultural change, and there is nothing that can or should be done by means of government to achieve that end.

In order to be consistent, you should support legalizing rape since only 3 out of every 100 rapists get convicted in court and receive jail time.

[thoughtomator]

In order to be consistent, you should support legalizing rape since only 3 out of every 100 rapists get convicted in court and receive jail time.

I'll get to that right after I'm done stuffing red herrings into this totally awesome strawman.

[Brett85]

I'll get to that right after I'm done stuffing red herrings into this totally awesome strawman.

I think my analogy made sense. If it should be legal to murder an entire group of people simply because it would be hard to enforce laws against abortion, then it should be legal to rape women since laws against rape are so hard to enforce.

[mz10]

I'll get to that right after I'm done stuffing red herrings into this totally awesome strawman.

Actually I think it's a pretty valid comparison, or at least one that's worthy of a response. I'm glad that you aren't of the "stop telling women what to do" persuasion, but if we are to have any government at all, shouldn't protecting human life be the first thing it is responsible for?