Posted on 10/26/2007 5:10:37 PM PDT by WFTR
NEW YORK — Even though few Americans say abortion will be the most important issue for them in the upcoming election, nearly half say they need to know a candidate’s position on abortion before deciding their vote for president.
A FOX News poll released Friday shows that 45 percent of Americans need to know a candidate’s position on abortion before they vote, while 53 percent say it is not something they need to know.
...
The poll finds that 53 percent of Americans think abortion should be legal if the baby has a fatal birth defect, including 26 percent of those identified as pro-life, and 30 percent think it should be illegal.
The highest number — 73 percent — say abortion should be legal if the pregnancy puts the mother’s life at risk, and a sizable 70 percent majority thinks it should be allowed in the case of rape or incest. A smaller 56 percent majority of Americans says the procedure should be legal when the mother's mental health is at stake.
About 4 in 10 (39 percent) think that abortion should be legal if the pregnancy is simply unwanted, while half (50 percent) say it should be illegal.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Being for restrictions on abortions nets a candidate about 7% over a pro-abortionist candidate.
One reason for this number being much lower than many of us would expect may be the way "pro-life" has come to be defined. I believe in exceptions for medical threats to the mother's life and for women who are pregnant as a result of rape. As we'll likely see in the posts on this thread, many pro-lifers will attack me for holding these beliefs, and as a result, I'm much less likely to identify myself as pro-life than I was a few years ago. The insistence by the pro-life movement on now allowing these exceptions may be one reason that we are closer to nominating a presidential candidate who is not pro-life. This insistence may be one reason why the candidates who are "purists" on the issue are also the ones at less than 5% in the polls. With 70% of Americans believing in the rape exception, a "no exceptions" position is less likely to be a winner in a national election.
Bill
Wrong priority.
“...while half (50 percent) say it should be illegal.” Well, I guess it good that at least half of America seems to think killing babies is wrong.
<sarcasm
In spite of the rhetoric of many pro-lifers, even they seem to believe that some lives really aren't worthy of protection. A human conceived by rape or incest is what, less human?
One intrinsically evil act cannot justify another intrinsically evil act. No matter how awful the facts surrounding the conception, the result of that conception remains inarguably a blessed human life worthy of protection and love. Killing the defenseless doesn't un-rape a woman or wipe away an act of incest.
The article says that 48% identify themselves as "pro-choice" while 37% identify themselves as "pro-life." However, only 40% say that abortion should be legal simply because the child is unwanted while 50% say that abortion should be illegal under those conditions.
The point may be that Americans no longer see abortion as something good or positive or healthy, but Americans don't uniformly see abortion as murder. A candidate who advocates some restrictions on abortion while not advocating a complete "no exceptions" ban is likely a candidate who is representing what a plurality of Americans believe.
Bill
I don’t identify myself as prolife. In fact, most prolifers leave a sour taste in my mouth. You will meet them and understand why on this thread.
Of course, tootyfruityrudy would have us believe that most of those voters would vote for Hildebeast.
You shouldn’t identify yourself as “pro-life,” per say but as a person created in the image of God.
What matters is not what people label themselves as, what matters is how people vote and being for more restrictions on abortions is the single biggest vote gain the GOP has over the Democrats. Even most people who call themselves pro-choice, actually favor things like waiting periods, parental notification, and late term bans. Once you protect the life of the mother and allow exceptions for rape, there are very few ‘pro-choices’ left.
On the contrary, a human conceived by rape or incest is just as human, but the situation is not that simple. Refusing to allow the rape victim to have an abortion means that the criminal justice system must prosecute a rape victim for refusing to let the rapist dictate the next year of her life. While some women handle pregnancy very well and can continue pursuing their goals in life, others suffer greater physical, mental, and emotional impacts that may keep them from moving forward. You're welcome to argue that rape victims who carry the child will do better than those who abort, but the government's job isn't to force a woman to do what's healthiest for her. I agree that carrying the child so that it has a chance at life is noble, but the government's job is not to force people to do what is noble. Justice is not served by putting a rape victim or her doctor in jail because she refused to carry the child forced on her by the rapist.
Regardless of whether the victim carries the child, a rape that results in pregnancy should bring a longer sentence to the rapist. If the victim carries the child, the sentence punishes the rapist for taking away many of his victim's choices over the next year. If the victim refuses to carry the child, the sentence punishes the rapist for the death of the child. Either way, justice is served, and our government hasn't forced a rape victim to do anything more that she didn't want to do.
Bill
I don’t think you should tell me how I should identify myself, really.
Thanks for your comment. I'm very familiar with what you are talking about. I've been through this argument many times, so I won't be surprised. While I often don't call myself "pro-life," I believe that the unborn child becomes a person very early in pregnancy. I'd like to see the laws reflect this status and would like most abortions to be illegal.
Bill
Good point. Thanks.
The poll finds that 53 percent of Americans think abortion should be legal if the baby has a fatal birth defect,
BABY: this is a baby; a human being!: Have we gone INSANE: Just becuase one has a “birth-defect”, they not don’t deserve life (and humans can now judge to allow that to happen!??). This is sickening. How can someone rationally say that this should be LEGAL?
Because the “Adults” are thinking of themselves; selfishness?
I think most of 40% who believe that abortion should be legal if the pregnancy is unwanted will vote for Hillary. Rudy Giuliani may peel away some of those votes, but the votes he loses will more than offset his gains. I believe many Americans are looking for a middle ground at this point in time. Rudy Giuliani is doing a good job of selling himself as representing that middle ground, but his career has been that of a politician on the far left of the issue. Because of that past, he's going to lose many core Republican votes.
Bill
I’ll go one step further and say that ALL abortion is SELFISHNESS.
Does her desire to move on with her life outweigh a baby's life? I don't believe that God makes mistakes when it comes to creating a life. I believe that we should err on the side of the child, but I agree that practically speaking if we can save 99% of babies from abortion by accepting a rape exception, it would be worth it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.