Posted on 05/27/2009 4:41:07 PM PDT by neverdem
As an atheist and a secular kinda guy, I practice moral relativism regularly. Still, I always have struggled mightily with the ethics and politics of abortion. Apparently, I'm not alone.
A new Gallup Poll claims that for the first time since 1995—when the question was first asked by the organization—most Americans consider themselves to be "pro-life" rather than "pro-choice."
The straightforward question asked of participants was this: "With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?" Fifty-one percent responded that they were pro-life, and 42 percent said they were pro-choice. These percentages are the reverse of what was found in the same poll in 2006.
What happened? Is it possible that the nation has undergone a gigantic attitudinal shift on the fundamental issue of abortion in only three years' time? Logically, it seems that the entire framing of the debate has become antiquated and far too simplistic for the questions we face. Anecdotally, I would say it's possible. I know I've changed my views.
After a life of being pro-choice, I began to seriously ponder the question. I oppose the death penalty because of the slim chance innocent people will be executed and because I don't believe the state should have the authority to take a citizen's life. So don't I owe a nascent human life at least the same deference? Just in case?
Now, you may not consider a fetus a "human life" in early pregnancy, though it has its own DNA and medical science continues to find ways to keep the fetus viable outside the womb earlier and earlier. It's difficult to understand how those who harp on the importance of "science" in public policy can draw an arbitrary timeline in the pregnancy, defining when human life is worth saving and when it can be terminated.
The more I thought about it the creepier the issue got. Newsweek, for instance, recently reported that 90 percent of women whose fetuses test positive for Down syndrome choose to abort. Another survey showed that only a small percentage of mothers even use the test. So what happens when 90 percent of parents test their fetuses? Does it mean the end of the disorder, or are we stepping perilously close to eugenics?
What about future DNA tests that can detect any defects in a fetus? What happens when we can use abortion to weed out the blind, the mentally ill, the ugly, or any other "undesirable" human beings?
Recently, Sweden's National Board of Health and Welfare ruled that women are permitted to abort their children based on the sex of the fetuses. In the United States, a woman can have an abortion for nearly any reason she chooses. In fact, a health exemption for the mother allows abortions to be performed virtually on demand.
If you oppose selective abortions but not abortion overall, I wonder why? How is terminating the fetus because it's the wrong sex any worse than terminating the fetus for convenience's sake? The fate of the fetus does not change; only the reasoning for its extinction does.
Now, I happen to believe (as civil libertarian and pro-life activist Nat Hentoff once noted) that the right to life and liberty is the foundation of a moral society. Then again, I also believe a government ban on abortion would only criminalize the procedure and do little to mitigate the number of abortions.
Obviously, these are a few of the complex and uncomfortable issues to ponder. Maybe this poll tells us that the dynamics of the abortion debate are about to change, that Americans are getting past the politics and into the morality of the issue.
Then again, it's entirely possible that I'm just projecting.
David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of Nanny State. Visit his Web site at www.DavidHarsanyi.com.
COPYRIGHT 2009 THE DENVER POST
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
I have wondered about this hypothetical-what if, by some chance, a “gay” gene was discovered? How would homosexuals feel about women having conceived a baby with such a gene, choosing to abort? (Note-I don’t believe in “abortion”—it’s plain murder, and I don’t believe a “gay” gene will ever be found—it’s a choice)
He's off his meds, I guess.
Good point.
How can an obviously intelligent person make this assertion?... “Then again, I also believe a government ban on abortion would only criminalize the procedure and do little to mitigate the number of abortions.” Does this person not believe what is legal becomes embraced as acceptable, then okay, then nothing at all just the norm? Or at bare minimum, can this person not reason it out that any behavior/industry made illegal and that is as easily traceable as medical procedures can be severely reduced by making it illegal? I don’t doubt this transactional puke will assert that drug use has only gotten worse with making it illegal and fighting ‘the war on drugs’. And that will reveal the idiocy of equating drug use with murdering the alive unborn.
Logic time class:
If outlawing an activity does not reduce the occurances of said activity, then why have laws at all?
I wonder if they would still consider it the woman’s “choice”, or if they would then consider it “discrimination”? But how can there be discrimination against a “fetus” (as opposed to a human baby)? But then wouldn’t the women be discriminating against an “oppressed minority” by choosing to “get rid of” the “fetus” with the gay gene? Hmmm.
The squishy middle understands abortion is wrong but doesn't want to outlaw it altogether. They're ok with restrictions on late-term and partial-birth abortion, and with parental notification laws. They don't want government funding or encouragement of abortion, but they think early term abortions shouldn't be banned outright. Whenever a conservative governing coalition starts to get close to overturning Roe v. Wade, they start considering themselves pro-choice. Whenever a liberal governing coalition starts using government to fund and promote abortion, and force medical professionals to participate in abortions regardless of conscience, the squishy middle drifts into the 'pro-life' category.
We've been at an impasse where public opinion hasn't really moved much for 25 years. I wish I knew how to break that impasse and move the public's conscience on the abortion issue, the way the slave abolition movement was able to. It will take a leader with exceptional communication skills to accomplish that.
I'm not yet sold on Palin as the next presidential candidate, but perhaps the reason the left has tried so hard to destroy her is they recognize that she has both the communication skills and the personal story to effectively shift public opinion on this issue.
I wonder whether Governor Palin might already have done that. We saw her beautiful baby. We saw the love in her family. I imagine many people on the edge of the pro-life/choice decision for the first time considered the possibility that an "imperfect" baby was not by definition a family burden.
I'm not yet ready to say it's Palin's turn in 2012, but I would be more than happy to see her earn the nomination and then take our country back people who think America is good and the Constitution is great.
ping
I believe this ignorance about the political meaning of "pro-life" is responsible for the 51% rating.
I think we are making progress but we're not at that point yet.
>> The more I thought about it the creepier the issue got.
Thinking involves more thought than not thinking at all.
More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time
That's Gallup.
Pro-Life PING
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Its no problem. Simply outlaw the test for the gay gene.
A lot of women began using abortion as a means of birth control after it was legalized, and it actually took a few years for the numbers to climb over a million per year. There is no reason to believe that making it illegal again would not have any effect on the numbers. Personally, I'd like to see more done to educate women, and to change the tolerant attitudes that basically give them a free pass for having irresponsible sex. If a woman doesn't think that this is the right time to be having a baby, there is no excuse whatsoever for her to get pregnant.
What those who take this view must remember is that we are not a "pro choice" nation, but a pro-abortion one. If this fellow is uncomfortable with a government ban he can certainly fight to end the hundreds of millions of dollars of government subsidies that go to abortionists, and he can certainly oppose giving abortionists privileges not held by real doctors (i.e. parental consent/notification).
And with regard to "government bans" he can at least recognize that the degree to which one should be enacted is one for the legislative bodies and not courts.
"With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?" Fifty-one percent responded that they were pro-life, and 42 percent said they were pro-choice. These percentages are the reverse of what was found in the same poll in 2006. What happened?Who picked up the phone, that's what happened. Thanks neverdem.
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.