Pro-life majorities are overwhelming

ConservativePetitions.com ^ | January 15, 2003 | Janet Folger

[Support Free Republic]

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
Thanks Registered

[Skooz]

But, but, but.....Katie Couric, Dan Rather, and CNN constantly tell us that the majority of Americans are "pro-choice." They also tell us that being pro-life is political suicide for any candidate.

Who to believe?

[Remedy]

poll & petition bump

[Desdemona]

ping

[ken5050]

I have a fund raising suggestion, and a way to solve the tiresome "tag line" debate......why not charge to post a tag line......look, FR is free...it's supported by voluntary contributions.....tag lines are "optional"....so institute a modest charge to use 'em, an/or change 'em.....I assume the software would enable this to be done....and because they would cost somehing...they'd be perceived as more valuable.....heck..we could have a contest for the best/funniest tag line each month....

[ppaul]

The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com

---

New poll shows tilt to protect unborn

Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published January 16, 2003

---

Nearly 70 percent of Americans say they favor "restoring legal protection for unborn children," according to a new poll that pro-life groups say shows public opinion is swinging their way on the abortion issue.
This is the new, big change in this country, Sandy Rios, president of Concerned Women for America, said yesterday as she and other leaders of pro-life and traditional family groups released the findings of a Wirthlin Worldwide poll taken last month.
Some 1,000 adults were asked whether, in light of medical advances that reveal the unborn child's body and facial features in detail, are you in favor of restoring legal protection for unborn children? Sixty-eight percent of the randomly surveyed adults said they were in favor of legal protection, with 44 percent in strong agreement of such action.
Almost the same number, 66 percent, said they favored nominees to the Supreme Court who would uphold laws that restore legal protection to unborn children.
These polls reflect a growing pro-life attitude, said Janet Folger, president of Faith2Action, a new outreach organization for pro-life and traditional family issues. We have the American people standing with us.
The grass-roots leaders praised President Bush and his administration for their pro-life positions, including proclaiming Sunday as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. He's done more, practically speaking, than any other president, said Mrs. Rios.
The sanctity of human life proclamation, issued Tuesday, is the second for Mr. Bush, who is following the tradition of Presidents Reagan and George Bush.
The six-paragraph document urges Americans to reaffirm our commitment to respecting the life and dignity of every human being and to rededicate ourselves to compassionate service.
The president acknowledged the significance of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act he signed last year, which amended the legal definitions of person, human being, child and individual to include any fetus surviving an abortion procedure.
Mr. Bush also restated his administration's support for compassionate alternatives to abortion, such as group homes for unwed pregnant women, abstinence education and adoption.
Every child is a priority and a blessing, and I believe that all should be welcomed in life and protected by law, he added. Through ethical policies and the compassion of Americans, we will continue to build a culture that respects life.br> NARAL Pro-Choice America said Mr. Bush's message was out of step with the beliefs of many Americans.
A majority of Americans believe that women should have the right to choose and that decision should be between a woman and her doctor, the group said in a statement.
NARAL Pro-Choice America yesterday released a state-by-state report on abortion that found hundreds of laws restricting a woman's rights to choose, and elevating fetal rights.
Despite 30 years of legalized abortion, women have fewer reproductive rights than their mothers had in 1973, said Kate Michelman, president of NARAL. With more states ready to enact further restrictions, she said, there's a clear case for mobilizing a pro-choice America.

Copyright © 2003 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.

---

Return to the article

[Karsus]

This is not an attack on any group. I am just stating a possible reason for some peoples behavior.

I do not think it is being pro-life/religious that is the problem. It is some of the other beliefs that quite a few of the pro-life groups have that worry people.

Some people get worried about pro-life/religious groups that appear to want to control people's lives.

[EternalVigilance]

Ever hear of a push poll? This is one of them, and it therefore means nothing.

Bullhockey.

[Tony Niar Brain]

Sorry to nitpick, but about the title... How can you have more than one majority on any single issue? Seems to me by definition you can only have one.

[Remedy]

I understand you were responding to post #3.

[Remedy]

Keep reading past the title

[copycat]

Ever hear of a push poll? This is one of them, and it therefore means nothing.

Without proof (like the questions), your statement has no merit.

[TontoKowalski]

Much as I'd like to believe that the nation has undergone a such a profound shift, I don't think if the question were asked, "Do you believe that Roe V. Wade should be overturned," that 70% would respond "yes."

We're making strides, slowly but surely, but this sounds a little overoptimistic.

[Remedy]

Are unborn children human beings? Are they persons? No doubt about it. The following essays argue the pro-life case...

• When Do Human Beings Begin? -- by Dianne N. Irving, Ph.D. In this essay, former NIH bench research biochemist Dianne Irving demonstrates the scientific fact that the lives of human beings--and human persons--begin at conception.
• Personhood Begins At Conception -- by Peter Kreeft, Ph.D. Professor Kreeft explains what exactly a "person" is and why the various philosophical positions which deny that the unborn child is a person are themselves inadequate.
• Is the Unborn Less Than Human? -- by Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. In this essay, Dr. Beckwith lays out the scientific facts surrounding human development and explains why it does not make sense to argue that a human being is created at implantation, quickening, or birth.
• When Does a Human Become a Person? -- by Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. Continuing the previous essay, Dr. Beckwith demonstrates why other functional criteria given for personhood--such as sentience, brain development, and viability--are inadequate. He then refutes the "gradualist" position, which incorrectly asserts that the unborn becomes more and more human as the pregnancy progresses. Finally, he discusses the positions of various abortion and infanticide advocates like James Rachels, Mary Wollenkott, and Michael Tooley.
• Does Life Begin At Implantation? -- by Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. In this essay, Dr. Beckwith addresses the phenomena of monozygotic twinning, hydatiform moles, choriocarcinoma, blighted ova, cloning, and fertilization wastage. He then shows how these phenomena fail to disprove the position that human life begins at conception.
• Scientific and Philosophical Expertise: An Evaluation of the Arguments on Personhood -- by Dianne N. Irving, Ph.D. In this essay, biochemist Dianne Irving argues that positions which assert that early human embryos are not persons are based on inadequate philosophical principles and faulty scientific data.
• The Human Rational Soul in the Early Embryo -- by Stephen Heaney, Ph.D. In this essay, Professor Heaney discusses the various theories of "ensoulment" that permeate philosophical (and theological) discussions on abortion.
• A Survey of Arguments for Immediate versus Delayed Animation -- by Scott Sullivan. In this essay, Thomist Philosopher Scott Sullivan critically analyzes the theory of mediate animation.
• The Tiniest Humans -- an interview with the renowned geneticist Jerome Lejeune and the father of modern embryology, Sir Albert William Liley

Some abortion advocates are willing to concede that unborn children are human beings. Surprisingly enough, they claim that they would still be able to justify abortion. According to their argument, no person-no unborn child-has a right to access the bodily resources of an unwilling host. Unborn children may have a right to life, but that right to life ends where it encroaches upon a mother's right to bodily autonomy. The argument is called the bodyright argument, and it is refuted in the following essays...

• The Bodyright Argument: A Pro-life Response -- By Brian D. Parks. In this essay, your webmaster gives a comprehensive analysis of the bodyright argument, including a discussion of the various pro-abortion analogies to pregnancy, and a refutation of the positions of Philosophers Judith Thomson, Susan Mattingly, Patricia Jung, Frances Kamm, Margaret Little and others.
• The Changing Pro-Life Argument: Does the Humanity of the Unborn Matter Anymore? -- by Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. In this essay, Professor Beckwith introduces and refutes the famous argument from "bodily rights".
• A Woman's Right Over Her Body? -- by Stephen Schwarz, Ph.D. In an excerpt from his book The Moral Question of Abortion, Dr. Schwarz addresses arguments in defense of abortion that are based on a woman's "right" to control her own body.
• Unplugging a Bad Analogy -- by Doris Gordon. In this essay, Doris Gordon, the National Director of Libertarians For Life, refutes a famous argument put forth by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson.
• Abortionists, Violinists and Burglars -- by Christopher Kaczor, Ph.D. In this essay, Professor Kaczor addresses Thomson's arguments from a different angle.
• A Fetus is NOT a Parasite -- by Thomas L. Johnson, Ph.D. In this piece, chordate embryologist Dr. Thomas L. Johnson attacks the popular misconception that a human fetus is the equivalent of a biological parasite.
• Begging the Question -- by Edwin Viera. In this brief essay, Dr. Viera explains why the statement "a woman has a right to control her own body" begs the basic question in the abortion debate--is she only affecting her own body when she aborts?

Why would it be wrong to kill an adult? Why would it be wrong to kill a baby after it has been born? Questions like these seems trivial, but their answers are extremely important to the abortion debate. What many people fail to realize is that most of the arguments used to justify killing unborn children could be used with just as much force to justify killing newborn children and, in some cases, even full-grown adults. The wrongness of killing is discussed in the following essays...

• I Was Once a Fetus -- By Alexander Pruss. In this essay, mathematician and philosopher Dr. Alexander Pruss offers an identity based argument against abortion.
• The Real Problem with Abortion -- by Mark McNeil. In this essay, Mark McNeil examines two competing positions on the issue--the position of moderate pro-life advocate Don Marquis and the position of liberal abortion advocate Mary Anne Warren. McNeil concludes that neither position sufficiently explains why it is wrong to kill human beings, and introduces his own viewpoint.

[Fee]

Technology is great. Spiritual people tend to separate science and religious activity. But technology is bringing people to wonder about religion. People who study DNA marveled at precision and orderliness of cells and sub-cell structures. Astonomers are awed by the vastness of space shown by the new hi-tech telescopes in space. Now NMR images are so precise we can see the details of a small unborn fetus that the images are making woman think.

[Remedy]

BUMP & THANKS!

[codder too]

Interesting to note that all 6 announced Dem Presidential Candidates are planning on attending the NARAL "celebration". Let's hope that pro-life majority takes note and votes accordingly.

[sharktrager]

I'm pro-life, but this poll is no better than the one's we conservatives always decry.

They did not ask if the people favored legalizing abortions, they asked about restoring legal protection. The phrasing is very likely to result in an affirmative answer. It's no different than asking if you want the government to uphold a woman's right to determine if she wants to be subjected to invasive surgical procedures.

I'd say the true pro-lifers are the 44% who were strongly in favor (and understood what the pollster was getting at), with much of the next 24% either undecided, moderately pro-life or moderately pro-choice (and unable to read between the lines).