A Berkley Professor Wonders Why More Americans Don’t Accept Abortion

http://liveactionnews.org/culture/a-berkley-professor-wonders-why-more-americans-dont-accept-abortion/ ^ | 3/7/2012 | Calvin Freiburger

[Morgana]

Implicit in most pro-abortion commentary is a certain level of frustration that there remain people who disagree with them. “It’s the 21st century and the Supreme Court has spoken; can’t you anti-choice yahoos get with the program?” This leads to all sorts of outlandish speculation about what really makes pro-lifers tick.

Yesterday, UC Berkley sociology professor Claude Fischer published his thoughts on the “abortion puzzle,” attempting to figure out why Americans are growing “notably more laissez-faire on most sexual issues,” but not abortion:

Before the Roe v. Wade decision on behalf of abortion rights perhaps 25% to 30% of Americans were inclined to say yes [abortion is acceptable for any reason]. Then opinions shifted a bit in the liberal direction. Since that initial shift, however, the distribution of opinions has changed little. The trend since Roe v. Wade is displayed in the blue line in the graph below. About 37% of Americans said yes to abortion on demand at the end of the 1970s and about 41% said yes at the end of the 2000s.

Contrast that to the change, three times greater, in the percentage who said that “sex relations before marriage… [is"] not wrong at all” — the red line — from about 38% at the end of the 1970s to about 51% at the end of the 2000s. And contrast that to the shift, five-fold greater, the green line, in the percentage of Americans who disagreed with the proposition that “Women should take care of running their homes and leave running the country up to men.” Another perspective on this compares generations of Americans. The generation born in the 1970s was far more liberal than the generation born in the 1910s on whether women should stay at home and on premarital sex (by over 30 points on each question). But the 1970s generation was only a bit more liberal on abortion than the 1910s generation (only 7 points more).

To begin with, the premise’s question is flawed in two ways. First, while conservative and religious people are more likely to value stay-at-home motherhood, that’s a far cry from believing women should “leave running the country up to men.” If social conservatives didn’t believe in women having professional lives or political influence, then how do you explain Gov. Sarah Palin’s popularity among values voters, or the fact that the leaders of Live Action, American Life League, Americans United for Life, and the National Right to Life Committee are all women? This isn’t a recent phenomenon, as Fischer suggests—Mildred Jefferson helped found NRLC back in 1970, and Phyllis Schlafly has been an influential advocate for conservative cultural views since the sixties.

Second, abortion is not primarily a sexual issue. It’s related to sex because sex makes babies and abortion helps people have sex without becoming parents, but it’s only controversial because of what it destroys. But Fischer admits as much later in the piece, so more on this below.

Fischer cites a few sociologists who argue that disputes about gender roles lie at the heart of the abortion debate:

For one side, motherhood was the essence of being a woman, in which case abortion, especially abortion for convenience, devalued women’s purpose in life. For the other side, women were, or should be, essentially like men in ambitions and careers, in which case unwanted pregnancies undermined their freedom and the validity of their dreams.

But as time passed, the story goes, women’s reasons for getting abortions shifted, as did society’s conception of motherhood. With “how we understand motherhood…removed from the abortion debate, what remains are concerns about faith and about the personhood of the fetus”—“harder issues” to resolve than that of a woman’s place.

Could be. Or, it could be that personhood of the fetus was always pro-lifers’ chief concern, but the general public’s limited understanding of embryology made it easier to dismiss personhood as a strictly theological question. But as the science became clearer and ultrasound technology advanced, the truth of the pro-life message caught the attention of many who otherwise would have dismissed abortion as a private sexual matter.

Here’s a crazy idea: instead of writing books and commissioning studies about why pro-lifers believe certain things, maybe these guys could, y’know, ask us? Then again, the answer can’t possibly be as simple as “those people don’t want innocent babies murdered,” because that would raise some deeply disturbing questions about why pro-choicers don’t agree.

[grey_whiskers]

[wardaddy]

nothing personal but while i am very anti abortion (not pro life...some folks need killing)

but the vanguard of abortion activism is hardly the provence of men except male democrats and male abortion providers...a shrinking populace btw

and men simply cannot have abortions and are as/more likely to be found pleading not to have one...especially boyfriends as the woman is to be insisting on having one or she may simply just not tell her sperm provider

husbands have a little more say

women abort their babies with medical assistance...could be a man or just as likely...maybe more so nowadays..a woman doc or PA or NP

any fault of that lies exponentially more with women than men

it is a sad commentary of the kinder gentler bunch since the early 70s....women prior to that would have been very reluctant

something that has become routine whereby perhaps as many as 35% of all women will have had an abortion at some time in their adult pre menopausal lives

and that is the real reason abortion is legal

shiftless men who like the convenience are way down the list on who is the culprit...it is exceedingly rare that men force women to abort babies at gunpoint...I’m sure it has happened and you can maybe find an example but very very uncommon

[QT3.14]

No wonder liberalism is a mental disorder.

No problem with aborting murdering innocent millions, but howl with indignation when the scum of humanity face the death penalty.

My favorite fron Ronald Reagan:

"I’ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born."

[thecodont]

That was beautiful. Thank you.

[Ackackadack]

In other news, Americans wonder why don’t more Americans refuse to accept Berkeley professors.

[little jeremiah]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

Most of the pro-abortion people don't want to admit the simple truth. Aside from the cutting edge "ethicists" who advocate for post-birth infanticide; I guess this nut weirdo isn't that "enlightened" yet.

[SECURE AMERICA]

A Berkley Professor Wonders Why More Americans Don’t Accept Abortion

Glad you asked.
As Christians (80% of Americans Identify as) we believe it is a sin to murder the innocent
As Americans we side with the underdog/innocent and defend the innocent right to be born and to its life.....
Anything else I c an help you understand Professor just ask......

[CitizenUSA]

You make an excellent point. I think one could argue against abortion entirely on non-religious grounds. Like you wrote, a human life is involved. Even without religion, most people would probably agree that killing someone is wrong, because they can empathize with how they'd feel if someone wanted to kill them. In other words, the Golden Rule doesn't have to be based on religious faith.

I think the non-religious case against extra-marital sex is less persuasive. That's probably why more people think it's OK. Even though a large percentage claim to be Christian, they are Christian in name only. They ignore the clear teachings of their religion, so the only thing that would make them oppose sex outside of marriage would be the non-spiritual repercussions.

I suppose one could argue that sex before marriage increases the spread of disease or causes out-of-wedlock pregnancies, both being negative results from a purely secular/non-religious point of view, but one can mitigate those results with birth control and disease prevention. If one is willing to ignore the spiritual ramifications of not doing God's will, then extra marital sex doesn't seem as bad as abortion.

[thecodont]

I suppose one could argue that sex before marriage increases the spread of disease or causes out-of-wedlock pregnancies, both being negative results from a purely secular/non-religious point of view, but one can mitigate those results with birth control and disease prevention.

The spectre of a ruined reputation and loss of self respect, and a desire to avoid being "seduced and abandoned," are also "non-religious" incentives for a woman to avoid sex outside of marriage.

[Gene Eric]

Because abortion kills nascent life, you jackass.

[Yaelle]

It’s about protecting the weakest among us.

Liberals, you know how upset you get when someone abuses a dog? It’s because dogs trust us and need us, and they are so innocent. You know how you hate it when a gay guy gets bullied? When a black person is a victim of racism?

Well, little unborn humans are precious too. Innocent. Dependent on us, trusting us. They deserve the care you give to dogs. If someone has an unborn baby, and she doesn’t want it, she should not go to a kill shelter. She should find a rescue organization and make sure her unborn baby finds a good home.

Now, liberals, do you get it?

[Sherman Logan]

Sex before marriage doesn’t damage a woman’s reputation today, not in the eyes of most people. It doesn’t seem to harm most women’s self-respect, though they may be lying to themselves about that.

The idea of “seduction and abandonment” is meaningless in today’s world. It refers to a world in which a women was quite literally “ruined” by losing her virginity before marriage. If the man who seduced her abandoned her, nobody else would have her. She was rejected by respectable society and her options for survival became very limited, with prostitution the most common resort.

Few care today about female (or, of course, male) virginity today. Even on this forum Muslims who still do care about it are portrayed as bizarre. A Muslim who wanted his marriage annulled was viewed as antedeluvian, despite the fact that in much of the West this would have been quite unexceptionable not so long ago.

[SuziQ]

I don’t happen to believe it’s psychologically helpful for women to succeed in their careers over the bodies of their dead babies.

[redgolum]

People will rationalize all sorts of evil to get what they want. That is why abortion is legal.

[MacMattico]

I don’t disagree with you, to go through with an abortion is all on the woman. Just saying why does this loser male Professor think he knows better and can’t understand why we can’t just accept abortion when he really has no say in the matter. Not saying men shouldn’t have a say as it is their baby, too, but this guy doesn’t even act like a baby is human.

[wardaddy]

I agree with u 100 percent

And nothing warms my own heart more than good women who get it innately

[muir_redwoods]

‘Cuz it’s wrong?

[MacMattico]

Thanks you!