Strike While the Iron is Hot

[Fantine]

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/10/01/support-for-abortion-slips3/

Only a small minority of Americans (15%) say abortion is a critical issue facing the country today, down from 28% who said this in 2006. One-third says it is one important issue among many, while nearly half of the public (48%) says the issue of abortion is unimportant.

What's interesting about this?

In 2006, one third of conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats alike rated abortion as a critical issue. Since then, the percentage of conservative Republicans who rate abortion as a critical issue has dropped nine points, to 26%. But the drop has been much sharper among liberal Democrats: only 8% now say the issue is critical, a decline of 26 percentage points.

Politicians should read these polls...

Supporters of abortion are now much more likely to think the issue is 'no biggie.' Only 8% do. And why should they think it's a biggie, anyway? With birth control free and the morning after pill available over the counter, unplanned pregnancies can be as rare as whooping cough or measles.

So to me it seems to be a no-brainer. Democratic politicians, liberals don't care about abortion any more. Why do you?

Pro-lifers--wouldn't you want to have the choice to vote for a pro-life politician whose other positions aren't completely repellent and repugnant to you? What a wonderful thing that would be.

Maybe it would even make Republicans realize they have to earn your votes and your trust instead of throwing you a bone.

Interesting poll.

 

[WarriorAngel]

It is interesting.. but only because ppl believe the president has no actual position to change the abortion laws.
However; it would change if PPF was defunded and a health clinic for the indigent [men and women] were to be given the grants instead. [a dream]
It would change if Supreme Court Justices died during the tenure of the President besides finally retiring at age 99.

I like that the % has dropped - but because of the two things i mentioned above - it will remain a disadvantage for democrats [given the abortion pet issue] who are pro life - to run for president.
What needs to be looked at as far as polls go - is how many democrats, who vote, support abortion.

 

[WarriorAngel]

It is interesting.. but only because ppl believe the president has no actual position to change the abortion laws.
However; it would change if PPF was defunded and a health clinic for the indigent [men and women] were to be given the grants instead. [a dream]
It would change if Supreme Court Justices died during the tenure of the President besides finally retiring at age 99.

I like that the % has dropped - but because of the two things i mentioned above - it will remain a disadvantage for democrats [given the abortion pet issue] who are pro life - to run for president.
What needs to be looked at as far as polls go - is how many democrats, who vote, support abortion.

As long as those numbers remain high - pro life democrats cannot exist and flourish to the top.

 

[pdudgeon]

three interesting things that the poll brought out.
1. the relationship between % of church attendance and whether a person is pro life or pro choice.
2. how that attendance (or lack of it) reflected the views of the church or the views of the world.
3. the stark difference between Catholic and Protestant viewpoints on this subject
in relation to church attendance.

It would seem that Catholics who attend church often are more likely to be pro life, while Protestants who attend church more often are more likely to be pro choice.

 

[WarriorAngel]

three interesting things that the poll brought out.
1. the relationship between % of church attendance and whether a person is pro life or pro choice.
2. how that attendance (or lack of it) reflected the views of the church or the views of the world.
3. the stark difference between Catholic and Protestant viewpoints on this subject
in relation to church attendance.

It would seem that Catholics who attend church often are more likely to be pro life, while Protestants who attend church more often are more likely to be pro choice.

Back in the day after PPF became popular - and post-legally acceptable - Protestants were against contraception - they switched.
Same with abortion - it becomes a matter of conscience rather than a strict rule of thumb for all.

 

[Fantine]

What I see in the poll is that at this point in time abortion really doesn't matter to liberals. They figure that if people choose to forego birth control when it is free and readily available it serves them right if they have an unplanned pregnancy.

I mean here we are in 2015, living in a "democracy" which doesn't represent the common good of the people one bit, because voters are duped, bought and paid for by oligarchs with unlimited budgets, with massive income inequality, Medicare and Social Security continually under threat of extinction, and a majority of legislators who shouldn't be elected as dogcatchers.

So if liberals don't give a hoo-ha about abortion one way or the other, just drop the issue so that people with the right ideas, who care about the living, the environment, education, equity, and our future, will be elected.

The feminists will eventually realize that people who won't practice birth control when it's free and readily available aren't worth saving the abortion option for.

 

[WarriorAngel]

 

[pdudgeon]

What I see in the poll is that at this point in time abortion really doesn't matter to liberals. They figure that if people choose to forego birth control when it is free and readily available it serves them right if they have an unplanned pregnancy.

I mean here we are in 2015, living in a "democracy" which doesn't represent the common good of the people one bit, because voters are duped, bought and paid for by oligarchs with unlimited budgets, with massive income inequality, Medicare and Social Security continually under threat of extinction, and a majority of legislators who shouldn't be elected as dogcatchers.

So if liberals don't give a hoo-ha about abortion one way or the other, just drop the issue so that people with the right ideas, who care about the living, the environment, education, equity, and our future, will be elected.

The feminists will eventually realize that people who won't practice birth control when it's free and readily available aren't worth saving the abortion option for.

there's only one problem with that agenda; babies are still human beings.

If we disregard their right to life, then what is to stop someone from disregarding the right to life of the elderly, the infirm, the handicapped, or the poor?
issues about the environment, education, equality, and the future will not matter if there is no one alive to appreciate them.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Abortion has to be illegal before the worry ends.

 

[Armoured]

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/10/01/support-for-abortion-slips3/



What's interesting about this?



Politicians should read these polls...

Supporters of abortion are now much more likely to think the issue is 'no biggie.' Only 8% do. And why should they think it's a biggie, anyway? With birth control free and the morning after pill available over the counter, unplanned pregnancies can be as rare as whooping cough or measles.

So to me it seems to be a no-brainer. Democratic politicians, liberals don't care about abortion any more. Why do you?

Pro-lifers--wouldn't you want to have the choice to vote for a pro-life politician whose other positions aren't completely repellent and repugnant to you? What a wonderful thing that would be.

Maybe it would even make Republicans realize they have to earn your votes and your trust instead of throwing you a bone.

Interesting poll.

I would suggest that people think of it as "no biggie" because we've reached a point where it's just an assumed default. For many, abortion has always been an option, even if only a theoretical one in the back of their minds. It's always been there, they've never really had to think about it. I imagine they might get a bit more emphatic about it if the option was suddenly removed.

 

[Armoured]

there's only one problem with that agenda; babies are still human beings.

Come up with an empirical argument for that, and you win the debate.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Come up with an empirical argument for that, and you win the debate.

If they aren't human beings what are they? Any species? No species?

What about a kit in the womb of a vixen? Is that a fox? Or does species classification of the unborn only become mysterious in humans?

 

[MikeK]

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/10/01/support-for-abortion-slips3/



What's interesting about this?



Politicians should read these polls...

Supporters of abortion are now much more likely to think the issue is 'no biggie.' Only 8% do. And why should they think it's a biggie, anyway? With birth control free and the morning after pill available over the counter, unplanned pregnancies can be as rare as whooping cough or measles.

So to me it seems to be a no-brainer. Democratic politicians, liberals don't care about abortion any more. Why do you?

Pro-lifers--wouldn't you want to have the choice to vote for a pro-life politician whose other positions aren't completely repellent and repugnant to you? What a wonderful thing that would be.

Maybe it would even make Republicans realize they have to earn your votes and your trust instead of throwing you a bone.

Interesting poll.

If Democrats didn't care about abortion anymore, they would stop demanding that it be kept legal at all stages of gestation and their party would hold a wide array of views on the matter.

 

[Armoured]

If they aren't human beings what are they? Any species? No species?

What about a kit in the womb of a vixen? Is that a fox? Or does species classification of the unborn only become mysterious in humans?

Insert mandatory merry-go-round discussion over the difference between human as adjective and human as noun.

 

[Armoured]

If Democrats didn't care about abortion anymore, they would stop demanding that it be kept legal at all stages of gestation and their party would hold a wide array of views on the matter.

Do they demand that? I tought late term abortion was illegal over there?

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

Abortion has to be illegal before the worry ends.

Do you think that will really do it, just make it illegal and it goes away? I think it is more important to change hearts. After all, abortion procedures have been around for a very long time and has been illegal for most of that time. Making it illegal may stop some, but changing hearts will stop a lot more.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Insert mandatory merry-go-round discussion over the difference between human as adjective and human as noun.

Well why don't you define these differences then?

We can't demonstrate to you that something is a human being if we don't know what you mean by "human being."

 

[Armoured]

Well why don't you define these differences then?

We can't demonstrate to you that something is a human being if we don't know what you mean by "human being."

I've already explained this multiple time, including to you, iirc. IMHO, a human being is conceptually separate to something merely "being human". It involves ideas like self awareness and sense of self. But I'm not the one making the argument, you are, so how about YOU define "human being" for us?

 

[MikeK]

Do they demand that? I tought late term abortion was illegal over there?

We have no Federal law governing when abortion may happen - any moment up to birth is legal. I favor a compromise path, in which pro-lifers and pro-choices get together and adopt legislation that allows abortion for those who "need" it most while offering additional help to mothers and their children and placing strong controls on when abortion is and is not legal. Unfortunately, the majority of pro-lifers and pro-choices are extremists who will not accept any compromise, so we'll continue to get what we've always got.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I've already explained this multiple time, including to you, iirc. IMHO, a human being is conceptually separate to something merely "being human". It involves ideas like self awareness and sense of self. But I'm not the one making the argument, you are, so how about YOU define "human being" for us?

I would define a human being as an individual which is human. If there was no context to suggest more precise definitions, I would define "human" as "member of the human species" and "individual" as "single living organism." I would argue that this is the definition which best matches up with what people generally mean when they say "human being."

You want to talk about self awareness and sense of self. That's fine, but I don't think that these are the first things that people mean when they say "human being." For example, I think that most people would say that someone in a coma is a human being. Again, if your definition does not allow this than that is okay in the sense that we can discuss it, but you need to make it clear.

Especially if you challenge someone else to prove that something is a human being. It would be most charitable to assume a common definition for such a claim, not your personal specialized one.