It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   
This poll is too close to call with a sampling of less then 1000.

We live in a time where people are afraid - losing their jobs & homes - a war going on - and fear of the future. People do tend to cling to religion & family when afraid - - also that which is more tangible - - - rather then clamoring for rights of freedom.

In my opinion.

Edited in better judgment to ignore - rather then comment.







[edit on 19-5-2009 by Annee]




posted on May, 19 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Im curious about how many of the "Pro Lifers" support the death penalty?


I don't.

I am against the death penalty except in those extreme cases that the person is soooooooo violent and dangerous that he is likely to kill a guard or another inmate.

The Death Penalty should only be in self defense cases like that. IMHO


BUT ... Ya' know, Fred ... Killing an innocent baby just to make life easier for dear ol' mom is a lot different then punishing a guilty person who made their own bed and now has to lay in it.

That being said ... I'm still against the death penalty except for extreme cases and extreme situations.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Well i think religion has little to do with a person's pro-life/choice stance. I believe it is just used as somthing for one to blame the other side's viewpoint on and it is used to get more people to agree with a side. Christians can easily get other christians to think that abortion is wrong and it is murder by selecting passages out of the bible while athiests can easily get together on the issue of pro-choice because it is something christians are against. Then you have the group in the middle (most logical IMO) that has their own opinion that abortion should be legal under certian situations and not by request.
It is my opinion that abortion carried out just because you do not feel like having a kid is wrong, but i do not think it is murder. I think it is irresponisible to have unprotected sex without wanting a child. And before anyone starts up yes i do think rape victims should be able to get an abortion by request.
I still think that if one could get an abortion based on the pro-choice argument i should be able to sell my extra kidney to get a down payment on a house. It is my body i should be able to choose, but that's just my opinion.
The Buddhist view on the death penalty- Pointless, it will give you a murderer twice as bad when he comes back.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by The Mack]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
I agree one should be able to sell their own kidney. I also support euthanasia. There are prisoners on death row who want to die - but laws won't let them. Instead they have to live their life day after day because they don't have that choice

Yes I know Atheists who are anti-abortion. I even know gays who are anti-same sex marriage.

But - there is something called majority.

To make statements religion is not the main force behind anti-abortion - - is ludicrous in my opinion.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fremd

Originally posted by FredT
Im curious about how many of the "Pro Lifers" support the death penalty?


i agree with you. If the sanctity of life is truly sacred, then who are we to decide who lives and who dies?

I'd be curious if the admins of the website would conduct a member poll for this? I realize it's a heated discussion, but hey - so is the 9/11 cover up....and it would certainly make for some interesting discussions.

I'm pro choice, and i can respect those who are "Pro life". The difference is i'm glad they have the option to choose 'pro life', they're angry i have the choice to be 'pro choice'.




No the mis-understanding is in the two titles given where at least the pro-life title is specific and makes no apologies for its stance that life should be given absolutely every benefit of the doubt and every chance to survive and only those who threaten the lives of others (such as serial killers) should be seen as a cancerous abberation and capital punishment given as the antithesis of that same respect for life but our detest as a people for those who would seek to take your life or mine in their own personal gain or out of their own sick pleasure.

Capital Punishment is a testimony to the respect for life a society has but given that our legal system is the same one that allowed O.J. Simpson to go free and that many innocent people have been found to be cleared by their own DNA for capital crimes, I do NOT feel qualified nor am I comfortable with capital punishment. In fact, I am as conflicted with that as I am those who can not only decide the death of someone else, but when it is their own innocent flesh and blood,, I have no words to convey what extreme circumstances I would have to be in to make a decision like that. I have not heard any that make sense to me in this thread either.

When we peel the onion away, it is nothing but vanity or inconvenience. We hear all these terrible storys about woman raped as if every woman is raped that gets an abortion but of those that actually make up the lions share to opt for this barbarism, it is merely the selfish act of either a man who won't step up to the pump of manhood but will take the pump for its own sweet sake, OR a very self centered woman whose depth and character can be summed up like the vanity she is about. If beauty is only skin deep, then, she wants beautiful skin. But for heavens sake, just get that parasite out of my womb, before I get a stretch mark.

Yes I have seen that exact kind of rationale given to substantiate pro choice and again I remind you of the choice.

Life and Death, your son or your daughter,

dies.

His son and His daughter,

dies.

because some woman wanted not just the choice, but they wanted it to be a special RIGHT! to do this and it has become the first choice considered anymore by those who have been the "tragic" "victims" of what they knew was a possible consequence or blessing for the actions taken to bring it about. Once it has happened however, it is too late and we give no one else this kind of, get out of jail free card.

To sanitize this genocide of Americas potential greatness, we use language and semantics and a line of weak excuses dressed up as logical reasons for killing = aborting a human infant = fetus or in some cases symbiote. Just who do places like the planned parenthood think they are kidding. You want to agree with fredT? I still can't tell what his point was but Ill bet has something to do with pointing out a hipocrisy in the pro life position but I think that was answered quite well by someone already.

This President scares the bjesus out of me with his stance on abortion. This guy is nothing less than an infanticidal nut case when it comes to his stand on roe v wade.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by Con Science]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
It is humongously annoying when one poster goes after another with accusations of "your story is unbelievable".



Objection: The act of accusing or charging with a crime or with a lighter offense; That of which one is accused; the charge of an offense or crime, or the declaration containing the charge; A declaration of fault or blame against another" Google:define+accusation.

Now hold that thought, let it sink in.




Dude! Real life is stranger then fiction.


When real life begins to sound like fiction or when someone's alibi is statistically impossible to have personally experienced all the standard argumnents of the abortion issue, I am only voicing my opinion that it is in fact, hard to believe "Dude".

When someone posits themselves as having lived through most in both roles as a child of unwanted pregnancy and a woman who has based their argument on her own personal experience giving every possible scenario in situations that would have left the mother incapable of being as fertile as BOTH of them have been is improbable. Where the average human who may have a reaction to chromosomal changes that fool the ordinary human female species body into a pseudo state of pregnancy and for some reason this woman AND her mother, have some super endocrine system that even numerous methods of contraception in addition to numerous self adminestered abortion methods were unable to destroy this super fetus living in a uterous from Krypton, while survivng all of that too.

Yeah, I think is is reasonable to assume this is tabloid debate tactics the result of cleverness and having spent too much time in threads like this.

The defense she gave also is one for the text book examples of what professional witnesses do to get black listed where this poster casts her self having every reason to attack the opposing view while having no abortion completed for anyone to attack and a valid reason for being on welfare. As undaunting the task for living in the same shoes she alleges she has and as worthy of praise as they would be, it is illogical to say that no one having an anti-abortion worldview, would not be anything other than sympathetic to her plight and worthy of praise and assistance.

So what I assume is really the part of this they have an issue with is the credibility. To date, not one of my questions or suspicions have been backed by supporting data of any kind. So I took the liberty to research this on my own having access to the halls of academia and the benefit of some close friends who are Proffessors. If the only way to debate is to announce how humongously annoying it is to hear what is in my opinion "hard to swallow" without evidence or credentials,

yeah, I have every reason to reject this kind of debate tactic and in a court of law, testifying in a manner like this is seen as contemptuous and is stricken from the record. I guess that is why mine was removed for being off topic but it is hard to get to the topic when the evidence to argue the topic sounds so fabricated and ficticious. If we are unable to challenge this kind of "super witness", I may as well start adding all kinds of Phd's to my profile and borrow any and all experience that may help substantiate my assertions where anyone questions me, Ill alert on the basis of being off topic or a personal attack even when what I would be doing would be tantamount for foundation in a mis-trial. I guess ATS is ok with that or perhaps I have to brush up on what you all can "get away with" when it comes to actually "denying ignorance"

She says they all attacked her with extreme prejudice and in her own words all, were anti abortionist's.

I find all of that (and that was only a small portion of it) as unlikely as someone arguing they are a scientist with such a well orchestrated set of personal experience they have been witness to every live event of trans-speciation with a parents and great grand parents and great great grand parents who just happen to be the lineage of family members going back to the primordial soup having witnessed the first one celled amoeba.

Then when someone questions them that anyone alive back then to observe that as the first living thing has some explaining to do as it begs the question, how could it be the first living creature if there was someone alive to see it? You saying they are accusations when they are observations I voiced very solid reasons for doubting which is what we call an Opinion. You have every right to disagree but I challenge you to at least show statistically the probability that a woman making those claims, having lived through the undeniably hard to fathom set of circumstances she has had and those of her mother for the other set.

I would love to hear your answer as I have given this example to a prof, of statistics at our State University who will get his statistics from an obstetrician and a roe v wade historian. I don't have an answer yet but his off the cuff answer is it would be more likely to convert all the anti-abortion proponents to pro-choice save for one wrench in the works.

That would be that all of them would have to be one of those suckers born every minute and I just can't sell that kind of story because it, like the one you got uspet about,, is just too unbelievable.

If this poll had said words to the effect 70% of those polled were now against abortion, may I ask ( just out of curiosity) what you would "believe" ? and if you would, a short for why?

I think we can help eachother but you may not like the light it shines on this experiment. Please share anne.







[edit on 19-5-2009 by Con Science]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
- Nevermind.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by Annee]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   
i think the death penalty argument needs to stop.It is really just off topic and ignorant. Everyone is pro-life AND pro-choice, those are just pretty names we put on the ugly issue of abortion. One side is calling the other a facist and that side is implying the other side is ori-death.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
This poll is too close to call with a sampling of less then 1000.


[edit on 19-5-2009 by Annee]


971 people were polled. What differance would 29 more do?

How would 29 more people make it anymore reliable?



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
I as one individual amongst billions of humans - - decline to be an authority on what is real or believable. Real life is stranger then fiction.

However - personal beliefs should never determine laws that deny rights to individuals.

As a woman that actually put CHOICE into action - - I stand with my own Real Life experience. What is of utmost importance to me is I made a choice - and had the right to do so.

It was no one else's business.




I as one individual amongst billions of humans - - decline to be an authority on what is real or believable.


Splendid! Than we agree how unlikely it is that out of the billions of personal experiences out there where statistics have already been established and used by you in your own arguments, we can see how ONE person having what amounts to be all of those others combined and every one of them and their assumed remedy tried an failed is no authority either and the reasons for my saying that are why I have actually asked those who can access authoritative statistics whether it proves one to be dis-honest or not, that is not my fault.



Real life is stranger then fiction.


It is a matter of discernment annie, if "real life" is stranger than fiction, Then what is fiction? Can I assume you would believe anything you are told merely by using this line of reasoning? Can you explain to me what is it about real life that makes it so strange that not even fiction has a line of demarcation determining what is factually plausble and what is ficticiously fabricated?

Can you tell me what laws were made that were NOT the personal opinions of beliefs held by a segment of society who found those who chose to act on a behavior were not compelled by punishment of law that was not enacted by the belief it was wrong by an act of legislation that STARTED as a firm held belief?

I also asked that you offer your own belief or what you would believe had the poll been 70% saying they no longer felt abortion was your right.

Just the first thing that pops into your head ? It seems for a place to engage in debate, no one wants to actually debate and just offer anecdotes about life being stranger than fiction may be appropriate when someone hits the lottery 6 times in a row in six months and the day he gets his money he dies. but it is said because that kind of scenario is so fantastic it IS stranger than fiction and so is one day, in the life the post I was reffering to.

The last question I have is why you are speaking to me as if i had taken issue with your post? Yours was not the one screaming for substantiation but you are responding to me as if it was. How can you answer for someone whose life experience in question was not yours?

I have no issue with your opinions but you seem to have some problem with my having a right to my own. Am I mistaken?



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140

Originally posted by Annee
This poll is too close to call with a sampling of less then 1000.


[edit on 19-5-2009 by Annee]


971 people were polled. What differance would 29 more do?

How would 29 more people make it anymore reliable?


They probably wouldn't.

Excuse me that I said less than 1000 - rather then use the exact figure.




posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
I think the issue with it only being 1000 people is that this poll is saying something about the opinion of America based off the results of 1,000 people.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Mack
i think the death penalty argument needs to stop.It is really just off topic and ignorant. Everyone is pro-life AND pro-choice, those are just pretty names we put on the ugly issue of abortion. One side is calling the other a facist and that side is implying the other side is ori-death.


OK - but get it straight - - Pro-Choice is NOT Pro-Abortion - - its supporting individual Right of Choice.

Many people who do not support abortion - - still support individual Right of Choice.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Of course. Nobody i know is "pro-abortion" seem just see is as an option people sould have the tight to have. just like global warmng nobody is pro-global warming as in they think that we should intentionally warm the planet.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by jd140

Originally posted by Annee
This poll is too close to call with a sampling of less then 1000.


[edit on 19-5-2009 by Annee]


971 people were polled. What differance would 29 more do?

How would 29 more people make it anymore reliable?


They probably wouldn't.

Excuse me that I said less than 1000 - rather then use the exact figure.



Say what you mean.

If you don't think 1000 people would have made a differance then don't say it.

You don't need to use an exact figure, but don't suggest 29 more people would have made a differance.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by The Mack
i think the death penalty argument needs to stop.It is really just off topic and ignorant. Everyone is pro-life AND pro-choice, those are just pretty names we put on the ugly issue of abortion. One side is calling the other a facist and that side is implying the other side is ori-death.


OK - but get it straight - - Pro-Choice is NOT Pro-Abortion - - its supporting individual Right of Choice.

Many people who do not support abortion - - still support individual Right of Choice.


No annie, it is not they who need to get it straight, your propensity to hide behind cleverly used semantics is the very issue you keep tripping over.

How is it pro choice is NOT pro abortion if abortion is the very option you are arguing to have the right to choose, in the first place?

A woman who wants a baby doesn't usually get an abortion and a woman who is in a predicament for being pregnant and does not want to bring the baby to term, IS ALL FOR ABORTION if she can have one and has the heart or heartlessness to do it, which ever way you justify it.

If you know you don't believe in abortion like all those religious people you have stereotypically pigeonholed into the logical fallacy for guilt by association, then at least be consistent that THEY would invariably know which of the two activist groups to join and Ill just bet you, that title would be "pro-life"

Conversely, the same would be true for the stereotypical woman who wants to have an option and the only option is death unless of course she misscarries but that is not what either of them are divided over. You know as well as I do that Pro-choice is pro-abortion by virtue of the very option it wants to have the right to choose. otherwise there really is no option and no division. Just because we can find exceptions to the rule doesn't mean the stereotype isn't true just as you have remarked for saying all religious are behind the pro-life movement. I can say pro life doesn't mean no choice and sound just as disingenuous when we both know what time it is. Don't you think we should at least be honest with ourselves and admit it when the shoe fits

wear it.



[edit on 19-5-2009 by Con Science]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
To make statements religion is not the main force behind anti-abortion - - is ludicrous in my opinion.


My reasons are two fold.

#1 - Science.

I've seen the ultrasound videos of preborn babies sucking their thumbs, opening and closing their eyes, and playing with the cords. I've seen the scientific data that says preborn children feel pain during pre-birth surgeries .. like to fix spinabiffida .... I've heard records of a preborn babys heart beat. That's a human heart beat.

#2 - Yes .. #2 is for karmic/religious reasons.

But they are based upon reason #1. Reason #1 - science - tells me that the preborn person is really a person with his or her own heartbeat and his or her own levels of pain. Knowing those things are why my reason #2 kicks in.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Well i think most people can agree that the late term abortions should be illegal but most are done before there are thumbs and eyes formed. Once again they are not just smaller verions of a 9 month old fetus.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Con Science


Conversely, the same would be true for the stereotypical woman who wants to have an option and the only option is death unless of course she misscarries but that is not what either of them are divided over. You know as well as I do that Pro-choice is pro-abortion by virtue of the very option it wants to have the right to choose. otherwise there really is no option and no division. Just because we can find exceptions to the rule doesn't mean the stereotype isn't true just as you have remarked for saying all religious are behind the pro-life movement. I can say pro life doesn't mean no choice and sound just as disingenuous when we both know what time it is. Don't you think we should at least be honest with ourselves and admit it when the shoe fits

wear it.


Please do not take this offensively, but this is absolute foolishness.

People who are pro-choice simply understand that there are situations where an abortion is necessary, or the most practical solution to a problem. We do not advocate abortion as a form of casual birth control, and no woman in her right mind would use it as such. Abortions are painful, emotionally scarring and expensive procedures, and they are usually only used as a last resort.

To say that being pro-choice is pro-abortion is just wrong. There are people who would never get an abortion, but can still understand how others might have to based on their individual needs. What it comes down to is whether or not those people want to force their perceived morality on others, or whether they believe it is up to others to make up their minds for themselves.

In other words, pro-life is the term people shouldn't be using. Sometimes women get abortions because they will die if they do not. Is that not pro-life? What it really comes down to is pro-choice vs. anti-choice.

You either want to allow potential mothers to make choices for themselves.

or

You don't think potential mothers should be able to make choices for themselves.

You either believe in the liberty of people to decide for themselves, or the authority of the church to make those decisions for them. If you consider yourself pro-choice, then that is fine. Nobody will ever force you to get an abortion, I promise. However, you do want to force other people to abide by your morals, which is un-American and, quite frankly, disgusting.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jd140

971 people were polled. What differance would 29 more do?

How would 29 more people make it anymore reliable?


They probably wouldn't.

Excuse me that I said less than 1000 - rather then use the exact figure.




Say what you mean.

If you don't think 1000 people would have made a differance then don't say it.

You don't need to use an exact figure, but don't suggest 29 more people would have made a differance.


Excuse me - - but this is a bit nit picky.

And does not add to the discussion in any way.

Edit to fix quotes.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by Annee]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join