Gallup first: more Americans now "pro-life" than "pro-choice"

reply to post by FredT


I would say that is about the same ratio as the Pro-Choice that oppose the death penalty.

But to extend the illogical argument, how can one be against allowing harden criminals that have committed murder, rape and other heinous acts against a fellow human being yet barely shrug when executing a life that had not even been born or so much as had the opportunity to tell a white lie such as "No, those jeans do not make you look fat."

I am sure future generations will see us as just as barbaric as we view the stereotypical caveman today.



[edit on 17-5-2009 by Ahabstar]

I typically doubt polls since they really do question a tiny section of the population and can easily be twisted depending on phraseology, etc.

However, I can understand a movement back to the pro-life side. I'm of the impression that women are choosing to focus on family earlier than the previous generations desire to have a career. While I read some things along these lines, I base that on my experience and reading.

It's off topic (sorta), but anything touching abortion normally devolves to an abortion debate at some point, I will address a few points on this.

1) I, and others, are not pro-life for religious reasons. I am devoid of religion entirely and simply use logic to reach my conclusions.

2) I oppose the death penalty for many reasons. Personally, I'd like jail to be punishment rather than rehabilitation.

However, linking the death penalty and abortion in either direction is intellectually dishonest, despite it having similar tones.

3) I do not believe in abortion for any reason. Extracting (while trying to save the child if possible) to save the mother's life does not fit into the abortion category in my book. To give exceptions for it's acceptance is nothing more than an extension of the rational the pro-choicers use.

Being raped is no excuse for performing an abortion.

4) Women have exclusive rights over the choice of abortion, unless there is a method I am unaware of for men to combat the process.

That being said, you can not, with any degree of fairness, force a man to pay child support in a choice he has no power to control.

Share the rights, share the burden, keep the rights, keep the burden.


I look forward to a good honest discussion.

Peace,
KJ



[edit on 16-5-2009 by KrazyJethro]

diss info at its pures, pro life or pro choise has nothing to do with your political agenda if your not "pro your self" at first.

to me this is all just hog wash , horse poo if you might.





im must just ask you all ,
what is life ,
and how can you prove that you have a what people call "life"


what most political persons try to do is get an opinion , no matter if its relavan or not and then they try to divide opinions in to groups which they can co oprehend , or just groups so that there is opinions about a subject

i mean, is pro choise about choosing the right tool for a interegation or is pro life about eutanasia ,

many people speak browdly about "how pro they are" which has very little to do if your liberal or conservative or what ever you might be ,

is there possibilities that there are neo con rape wictimis that want an abortion ??

i mean , get over with the greek ism and its and ics ,

to be "frank" : if you have that ,much time on your hand s to even ponder about your neighbours abortion, you spend more time on others then on your own life.

pro life means the having right to end life
pro choise means, have the right to choose

dont fall for the diss info .

just because you wear a yellow t-shirt dosent mean you eat bananas ,

i might lack words for what im describing , ,

what is choise if you have non and what is life if you dont live

mabye the most logical thing would be to interview a rape victims spawn and hear what they think about the whole thing .....



[edit on 16-5-2009 by zerbot565]

My personal belief follows the lines of our Cuban Refuge Policy.

If the fetus (the raft) reaches air through natural conception (dry land) then it should be considered a living being who is welcome into our civilization.

If the fetus is aborted (caught by the coast guard) before it is naturally birthed than it does not get that chance (gets sent back to Cuba).

I mean really the only question here is one of a religious belief, a question of a "soul". Not many of the people who argue for the rights of an unborn fetus argue for the rights of animals not being killed for a food source.

It comes down to do we think that a fetus is more intelligent than an animal. I cannot think of a better way to put it. Most Pro Lifers consider fetuses special automatically because of a soul.

I do not believe in a soul. I believe that we are animals that have evolved a better hard drive, faster processing power or ram, and one sweet case to put it all in.

We are Monchichi's with phat upgrades.

I am staunchly 'anti-abortion'. If asked, I would advise someone to not abort a pregnancy, which I consider to be killing an innocent human. This stance could be labeled 'pro-choice', because I believe the innocent human should be given the choice of living or not. I would not participate in the aborting of a pregnancy, in any manner. And, I do not want the government supporting it with my tax dollars.

In response to the question of the death penalty: I think a human who has voluntarily committed the most heinous of crimes against another human or humans, has forfeited his right to the life he has denied the other(s). However, this should only be the case when no doubt of guilt exists. I would, also, respect the opinions and wishes of the victim's family.

To the argument of the "Separation of Church and State": The basis of this phrase is in the First Amendment to our Constitution, which reads
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." I don't see the applicability here, although, many of our laws are rooted in religious morality.

I guess my main point is that we are so set on labeling everyone, we seldom listen to their entire point of view. Labeling me 'Pro-life' doesn't doesn't properly and completely explain my opinion. It is extremely rare that things are only black or white.

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers

I mean really the only question here is one of a religious belief, a question of a "soul". Not many of the people who argue for the rights of an unborn fetus argue for the rights of animals not being killed for a food source.

I do not believe in a soul. I believe that we are animals that have evolved a better hard drive, faster processing power or ram, and one sweet case to put it all in.

We are Monchichi's with phat upgrades.

I'm close to you in what I believe. I do believe that physical is just physical. But I also believe our natural state is intelligent conscious energy - - that "enters" or controls much that is physical human - - but is not physical itself.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers

I mean really the only question here is one of a religious belief, a question of a "soul". Not many of the people who argue for the rights of an unborn fetus argue for the rights of animals not being killed for a food source.

I do not believe in a soul. I believe that we are animals that have evolved a better hard drive, faster processing power or ram, and one sweet case to put it all in.

We are Monchichi's with phat upgrades.

I'm close to you in what I believe. I do believe that physical is just physical. But I also believe our natural state is intelligent conscious energy - - that "enters" or controls much that is physical human - - but is not physical itself.

Hey can you explain what you believe about conscious energy? I do not mean to offend but it sounds kind of untestable. Help me to understand it better?

Originally posted by WTFover


In response to the question of the death penalty: I think a human who has voluntarily committed the most heinous of crimes against another human or humans, has forfeited his right to the life he has denied the other(s).

dear old sigmund or jung would have said that the person in question who has commited the crime of taking an other humans life is wishing their own life to end but has not the capability to end it, hence they enter a state of hysteria/shock and project their desire of homicide towards others.

example , people around person X has a higher tendency of dying , its usualy the drunk driver that survives and not the sober victims,

bad example since one is behind the force of metal that has a forward momentum but still

ending their life would only be the desired effect of their actions, there for they shall be denied it.

only simple sollution if they should some how pay for it ?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by xxpigxx

Originally posted by Annee
. . . I am an adamant supporter of complete separation of Church and State - and Right of Choice to all decisions regarding ones own body - including euthanasia.

. . .

Funny thing is . . . do you have the right of choice for the baby's body and future life?

That is your belief that a fetus is a viable being. It is not the governments job to determine or dictate individual belief.

I stand by my Right of Choice.

So if I choos that you are not a viable being, I can kill you?

Originally posted by xxpigxx

So if I choose that you are not a viable being, I can kill you?

Same stupid "arguments" every time the abortion issue raises its head.

Legal conclusion of a fetus - by law is it is not viable until live birth (or in some definitions able to survive outside the womb)

By law - viable is living independent from the mother (or again in some cases able to live independent of the mother's womb or in some cases when the mother is killed - - viable in it would have survived if the mother had lived)

Killing a legal living human being by intent is murder.

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers

I'm close to you in what I believe. I do believe that physical is just physical. But I also believe our natural state is intelligent conscious energy - - that "enters" or controls much that is physical human - - but is not physical itself.

Hey can you explain what you believe about conscious energy? I do not mean to offend but it sounds kind of untestable. Help me to understand it better?

Untestable - you mean by science? Science knows only what it knows TODAY.

Best line ever: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."

I personally believe everything is energy. In the beginning energy evolved into consciousness/intelligence. Every thing is a thought creation from the original source "Creator".

I think that most of the pro-lifers are people who have never had the experience to have to chosoe what to do with a pregnancy.
What if they or one of their daughters are raped? What if they (and again, one of their daughters) become pregnant before finishing high school?

I myself, I am pro-choice because, I have never been pregnant, and depending on the conditions that surround my pregnancy (if it ever happens) I would chosoe to continue with the pregnancy or to terminate it.

On the other hand, I also think that if someone has an unwanted pregnancy, she/he must either live in a cave or is a complete moron, with all of the information there is in order to avoid one. It is unexcusable to have an unplanned pregnancy in these times.

Originally posted by haika
I think that most of the pro-lifers are people who have never had the experience to have to chosoe what to do with a pregnancy.

This is untrue and unfair.

Just personally, my wife and I have 3 kids with a fourth on the way. She does not work and I do in an expensive area. Budget is tight but we both believe in life and are strongly against abortion.

What if they or one of their daughters are raped? What if they (and again, one of their daughters) become pregnant before finishing high school?

My neighbors have and are raising a child (a great one at that) who is a result of rape (and not date rape either).

My wife was raped while in high school and carried the child to birth and gave it up for adoption. That is no easy thing, but to us it's the right thing.

What is easy is not always right.

I myself, I am pro-choice because, I have never been pregnant, and depending on the conditions that surround my pregnancy (if it ever happens) I would chose to continue with the pregnancy or to terminate it.

You have the luxury of that line of thinking.

On the other hand, I also think that if someone has an unwanted pregnancy, she/he must either live in a cave or is a complete moron, with all of the information there is in order to avoid one. It is inexcusable to have an unplanned pregnancy in these times.

Agreed.

Originally posted by haika

On the other hand, I also think that if someone has an unwanted pregnancy, she/he must either live in a cave or is a complete moron, with all of the information there is in order to avoid one. It is unexcusable to have an unplanned pregnancy in these times.

Wrong! I had an unwanted pregnancy while on the birth control pill (with my husband as we were going through a divorce)

My daughter had two while on the birth control pill - one of which the man was also wearing protection.

Birth control is NOT 100%. I'm just very thankful we have it - - can't imagine how many kids I'd have without it.

Originally posted by Annee

Birth control is NOT 100%.

Very true.

I got pregnant on the pill, so after that used 3 contraceptives at once.
And got pregnant again.

Then, due to health issues, a doctor told me I could not take the pill , any hormonal pill, or use an IUD. I tried to manage with the options left to me, but got pregnant a third time. Being only 24 I could not get a tubal ligation; doctors don't like doing them that young. So, as my husband was already mad at me for having 3 children, and definitely didn't want more, I stopped the type of sex that could get me pregnant. So he went off and had affairs and left me.

I didn't have abortions, despite believing in freedom of choice. My maternal instincts are too strong to allow that. Instead I was a single mother then to 3 children, unable to work because two were handicapped, and with no family or support.

So there I was, doing my best for my children in a very difficult situation, and the people who despised me and gave my little family a hard time were the staunch anti-abortionists. They were not interested in how I came to be on my own, they just wanted to throw their judgemental attitudes around at "yet another young unmarried mother with a bunch of kids on welfare."

I learned that anti-abortionists are not pro-life at all. They are pro hate, and make it even harder for a girl to be able to have and raise her children.

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by Annee

Birth control is NOT 100%.

Very true.

I got pregnant on the pill, so after that used 3 contraceptives at once.
And got pregnant again.

Then, due to health issues, a doctor told me I could not take the pill , any hormonal pill, or use an IUD. I tried to manage with the options left to me, but got pregnant a third time. Being only 24 I could not get a tubal ligation; doctors don't like doing them that young. So, as my husband was already mad at me for having 3 children, and definitely didn't want more, I stopped the type of sex that could get me pregnant. So he went off and had affairs and left me.

I didn't have abortions, despite believing in freedom of choice. My maternal instincts are too strong to allow that. Instead I was a single mother then to 3 children, unable to work because two were handicapped, and with no family or support.

So there I was, doing my best for my children in a very difficult situation, and the people who despised me and gave my little family a hard time were the staunch anti-abortionists. They were not interested in how I came to be on my own, they just wanted to throw their judgemental attitudes around at "yet another young unmarried mother with a bunch of kids on welfare."

I learned that anti-abortionists are not pro-life at all. They are pro hate, and make it even harder for a girl to be able to have and raise her children.

Oh Yes! Kailassa - I know the story.

My first pregnancy ended in miscarriage at 4 months - my first live birth child had ADD - my second live birth child was perfect - I also have health issues - then when going through the divorce - my husband and I had an emotional night - I got pregnant. Looking at my future with two children age 2 & 5 - and my own health issues - - I chose to focus on the two children I already had. They needed care - clothes - food - education.

At least you and I can honestly speak about this - with valid experience.

Do I regret it? Sometimes - - but I will stand forever with - I had the right to make that decision - - because it is no one else's business.

PRO-CHOICE - all the way. And Pro-Choice does NOT mean Pro-Abortion - - it means every individual has the right to make their own decision.

Originally posted by Annee

PRO-CHOICE - all the way. And Pro-Choice does NOT mean Pro-Abortion - - it means every individual has the right to make their own decision.

That's what so many people don't get. Pro choice people are not necessarily pro abortion, they are just aware that sometimes an abortion can be the lessor of two evils.

People who have not raised children with inadequate support have no idea how bad it is for everyone involved when women are forced to have babies. And advocating abstinence has never worked, for all sorts of reasons. Survival of the species depends on the urge to engage in sexual activity being strong.

I hope things work out well for you and your children. Mine are adults now, and we are not just family, we're friends who enjoy each others' company and can depend on each other.

Originally posted by mystiq
While I only believe in abortions being allowed to take place in the first trimester, this entire poll is probably bogus. There is a push to force religion into things, with even Ron Paul saying the constitution doesn’t word a separation of state and religion, which it does, and all democracies are founded on that clear division. This is merely NLP and MC. With the fascist state that has emerged, and all of their lovely new studies that have discovered such things as: theres a brand new mental illness that those who question the government's official policies seem to have, and conspiracy theorists are mentally ill, and so forth and so on, you can no longer trust any polls done. They're all likely to be disinfo and deliberately misconstrued results.

The idea their is a "wall of separation" which is intended to keep religious based ideas and convictions out of public office is NOT in the constitution and the supreme court has NEVER made a "per-se" ruling as to the meaning of the expansion powers in a de-facto case law decision.

The only test for which was the lemon law and that was created so that each case can be looked at case by case and only the supreme court can say whether or not something or someone is truly imposing religion in an attempt to establish a state religion or would be tantamount to installing sharia law for example.

Judge dismisses parent's lawsuit over 'one state under God' wording in Texas pledge of allegiance

04:20 PM CDT on Friday, March 27, 2009

By KATHERINE LEAL UNMUTH / The Dallas Morning News
[email protected]

A federal judge has dismissed the claims of an atheist parent who sought to remove the words "one state under God" from the Texas pledge of allegiance that public school children recite every morning.


David Wallace Croft had argued that the insertion of the words in 2007 by legislators was unconstitutional and amounted to a violation of the separation of church and state
www.kvue.com...

Again we seen this kind of mis understanding of the so called "wall of separation" Thomas Jefferson wrote about to the Danbury Baptists and transposing it into an amendment of the constitution.


It was used to leverage a deletion to the Obama inaugural address and again, people just don't know the facts about this very misunderstood area of our constituion.


Michael Newdow sued the President so he would not have to suffer the indignation of having to hear the words, "so help me God" at the end of his oath of office and saying it was unconstituional violating the expansion powers. He even challenged Obama to prove it says to say "so help me God" in the document.


Sillyness which Newdow and many others thinking such a thing is unconstitutional, are attempting to take the very freedom to say such a thing, away from Mr Obama, need to do their homework. For found in the oaths of office rendered to Supreme Court appointed clerks of court and enacted by the First Congress during their first session in 1789. The interested reader will find it at the Library of Congress.


It stipulates that such clerks are to take either an oath of office or an affirmation. In the case of the former, the oath to be administered states: "I,do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will truly and faithfully enter and record all the orders, decrees, judgment and proceedings of the said court, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties of my said office, according to the best of my abilities and understanding. So help me God." However, if a clerk were to opt for the affirmation instead of the oath, "so help me God" is to be omitted.


Anything which one can attribute a religious or Christian Judeo value to does not a violation of church and state make and the words saying "congress will not make any laws "respecting" the establishment of religion" is NOT a statute but I have seen it being used in this way to bludgeon lawmakers by those who claim to be offended by the mere utterance of the word "GOD" and it is absolutely the most frivolous pet peeves seen by the judicial system that has better things to do than placate the tender sensitivities of intolerant atheist's who would be more likely to tell me if I don't like the porn I see on the internet I should stay off it while in the same voice complain about being offended by a nativity scene.


Equally offensive perhaps to ones religion is the practice of subsidizing the systematic genocide of Americans not even aware of their rights let alone the idea the most dangerous place they are at the time, is in their mothers womb. I remember how shocked I was when I first saw a video of two baby sharks inside the mother when suddenly one of them attacked the other sibling killing it.


One of my friends said, "what can be more sickening than that!" I couldn't help but think without skipping a beat, and said "Its mother attacking them". The idea came to me without one thought of what some church has said. Could it be those in the Church simply have a organized voice in a matter which they may just very well have found to be exactly what it is.

The killing of an innocent child still in the womb.

How so many can decide they would kill their baby while not even pregnant and preach it as a right to choose it over and above measures that save a life is beyond my ability to understand and cannot see it as anything less than a tragedy for all those people involved. I see the use of separation being used in this way once again to invoke some sort of trump card to enable the continuance of this type of mindset, this kind of worldview.


The Gallup poll doesn't surprise me at all and those claiming our Government is fascist may have been true in the last administration but this one as got me in whiplash with a 180 degree turn to the most extreme left towards a quasi communist model.


Bottom line is, Ron Paul is correct and the Constitution does NOT have any wording about a so called wall of separation and only that Congress will make no law forcing anyone to respect a state religion NOR will it get involved in the free speech of any religion thereof.


Since there is no state religion and it is unconstitutional to make one, your worries are for nothing. The framers were only saying this couldn't be a Christian Government NOT that it couldn't be a Christian nation.



[edit on 17-5-2009 by Con Science]

Originally posted by Kailassa


That's what so many people don't get. Pro choice people are not necessarily pro abortion, they are just aware that sometimes an abortion can be the lessor of two evils.

No one is saying it means pro abortion because that isn't what they are about. You see pro life and pro Death are the options. I can just as easily use this same silly semantics to blur the lines even more and say Pro life doesn't mean NO choice. It is the choices that we make that one side wants death to be an option while another doesn't want that to be a choice if their are options available where one doesn't have to DIE to satisfy what someone else thinks it is their RIGHT to kill another.

Especially when the one dying isn't YOU but an inncocent child whose only guilty of being alive long enough for someone aware of their presence and able to kill them for any number of what should be last resort reasons and most of them boil down to alternatives that STILL would result in someone not having to die but get a chance at life just like you were.


[edit on 17-5-2009 by Con Science]

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by xxpigxx

So if I choose that you are not a viable being, I can kill you?

Same stupid "arguments" every time the abortion issue raises its head.

Legal conclusion of a fetus - by law is it is not viable until live birth (or in some definitions able to survive outside the womb)

By law - viable is living independent from the mother (or again in some cases able to live independent of the mother's womb or in some cases when the mother is killed - - viable in it would have survived if the mother had lived)

Killing a legal living human being by intent is murder.

Same stupid "arguments" every time the abortion issue raises its head.

I have to agree with you only it isn't the argument that will understand how stupid it is, it is the one making the argument. So either direct your ad-hom to the one entity that would know what you are calling stupid or don't bother mentioning it. Either way, we know what you are trying to say and it's just plane rude.

Legal conclusion of a fetus - by law is it is not viable until live birth (or in some definitions able to survive outside the womb)

This was the reason he answered you the way he did since this is the reason you have used to justify killing a human baby in the fetus stage of his or her life, than it makes for good case law to justify the killing of someone with alzheimers in the advanced stages of old age in their life.

The point is, it isn't a stupid argument, it's just one, pro deathers don't seem to have an answer for so they just ridicule it as you have done.

Nice work, should I expect more of the same from you also?