Posted on 06/30/2009 12:06:06 PM PDT by wagglebee
June 30, 2009 (PRI) - Is pro-choice the new pro-life? According to the New York Times, it doesn't really matter, because you probably don't understand the terms anyway.
According to the Times the recent Gallup Poll showing that a majority of Americans are pro-life is faulty at best, and downright sinister at worst.
The poll, conducted May 7-10, found that 51% of Americans are now "calling themselves 'pro-life' on the issue of abortion and 42% 'pro-choice.' According to Gallup, this is "the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995."
Not only did Gallup find these results to be consistent in two other surveys (the details can be found on Gallup's web site here), they also gave a rather forthright opinion as to why they thought this shift was occurring. President Obama's radical policies, Gallup said, are actually alienating many Americans who would consider themselves to be "pro-choice," causing them to shift over toward the pro-life position:
"It is possible that, through his abortion policies, Obama has pushed the public's understanding of what it means to be 'pro-choice' slightly to the left, politically. While Democrats may support that, as they generally support everything Obama is doing as president, it may be driving others in the opposite direction."
This sounds quite reasonable to me. Having a president who is radically pro-abortion might well cause the significant shift in opinions concerning abortion that Gallup detected.
Liberal opinion leaders, however, have been quick to condemn the poll as faulty, irrelevant, or simplistic.
"Young people are not suddenly turning prolife," scoffs Ruth Coniff of The Progressive. "They just view the abortion issue differently. The fact that we grew up in the era of safe, legal abortion makes women under the age of 50 a bit complacent about the issue."
Mark Mellman of The Hill agrees, saying that "typically, after some useless result escapes into the ether, reporters and interest groups proceed to spin some new theory of public opinion based on faulty analysis of a meaningless question."
Dalia Sussman of the New York Times goes even further. She first says that it "does not necessarily indicate a marked shift in Americans' views on this highly complicated issue." Then she cites other polling data done by different agencies to show how the numbers vary. She concludes by insulting the people Gallup polled, saying that "there is no way of knowing whether people being asked the question even know what the two labels mean."
The shift in polling data - and the liberals' efforts to discredit it - is cast into sharp relief by President Obama's recent address at Notre Dame. The President, in his speech, expressed the hope that pro-life and pro-choice advocates could find "common ground" on the subject of abortion.
"Let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term," said Obama. "Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."
This speech, which is full of such glowing, hopeful rhetoric, rings hollow when compared with Obama's record. What in the world does he mean by a "sensible conscience clause," given that he has already struck down existing conscience provisions?
Obama's rhetorical flourishes are cited ad nauseam by the media as evidence of "bipartisan progress," but they are actually little more than deceptive propaganda.
Pro-lifers have not, and will not, be lulled to sleep by such mouthings. We realize that human life is at stake. We agree that women should have better gynecological care; that there should be fewer teen pregnancies, that there should be more adoption. We agree that women should be happy and safe and free. But we will not willingly allow anyone to take a human life, which is what an abortion does.
It is thus ludicrous to suggest that the two sides "work together" on the issue of abortion. There can be no common ground on the morality of abortion.
I believe that, contra the New York Times, those surveyed by the Gallup poll knew exactly what they were being asked when they were questioned on whether or not they were "pro-life" or "pro-choice." The terms outline positions that have existed on our political landscape for more than 30 years. To suggest that somehow, the idea of the pro-life movement is shifting, becoming more oriented around issues that "really matter," like women's health or reproductive freedom, is naïve.
And to President Obama: it's our movement, you can join us if you like, but the terms of the debate are already well defined, and are not subject to redefinition.
Colin Mason is the Director of Media Production at Population Research Institute.
Perfectly stated!
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
If people really could see what they are signing up for, to actually view a dead aborted baby or watch film of a actual abortion(there are already such films and photo`s) I really believe that pro abortion/pro choice (no difference btw) people would change their mind.
I do not say this to celebrate out-of-wedlock pregnancies; but it's clear that today's young women simply do not need to view abortion as the sacrament of the Church of Liberalism, to paraphrase Ann Coulter, as it was in the 60s and 70s.
Abortion is so, like, yesterday.
In other words, unlike the baby boomers' selfish abortion stance, people under age 50 view abortion with some objectivity, and not with the lockstep baby boom dogma that a woman (and especially a promiscuous one) has an absolute right to a dead baby.
And let’s not forget that there are millions of couples willing to adopt and they are prepared to pay all of the mother’s expenses during her pregnancy.
The baby boomers (and this is not a reflection on the thousands of FReepers who are boomers) are without a doubt the most selfish generation in the history of the world and I am certain that a century from now historians will be writing about just how much damage they have done.
baby boomers - the caligula generation
It’s also worth noting that FDR’s Social Security and LBJ’s Medicare Ponzi schemes ONLY WORK with predictable population growth, the death of 50 MILLION future taxpayers is largely responsible for the impending collapse of these schemes.
One Caligula killed thousands and now we have millions of Caligulas killing tens of millions.
This century and the last are the worst in world history.
What EXACTLY are you basing this on?
Are you actually claiming that most of those aborted wouldn't work?
The problem with such social programs is that they require the culling of such people to remain sustainable.
So, you support the "culling" (i.e. slaughter) of those you believe might someday be on welfare?
". . . that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness . . ."
Human law that violates or perverts the Natural, God given Law need not be morally obeyed. Not my idea, but paraphrased from 13th century Thomas Aquinas.
And this is why utilitarianism is, in practice, a monstrosity.
I’m fairly certain that this newbie SUPPORTS utilitarianism.
Bye!
Thanks!
There are plenty of ways to end welfare, killing babies IS NOT one of them.
Pleasure ;)
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.