Gallup's 2010 Values and Beliefs survey: Majority say abortion is immoral

I don't know if there's much to take from Gallup's 2010 Values and Beliefs survey except, perhaps, that 37-1/2 years after abortion was legalized and supposedly legitimized, followed by constant liberal cheers of approval, Gallup found the majority of Americans still believe it is morally wrong. And abortion remains one of the "four moral issues [that] sharply divide Americans."

But the major leap in opposition abortion took last year was apparently a blip. Click to enlarge...

gallup abortion 2010 values.png

Still, as I said about Gallup's previous abortion poll, I'd rather be us than them in this survey.

Opposition to human cloning remains high but to embryonic stem cell research not so much. If only people understood cloning is critical to escr's success, if there is to be any success. Sad that so many support physician assisted suicide. Don't get it. Click to enlarge...

gallup 2010 all.png

No surprise, Gallup found that "political divisions [are] greatest on gay relations and abortion." I've been searching and can't find whether Gallup divided the abortion question by party in its 2008 or 2009 Values and Beliefs survey to know if these numbers are changing. But politically abortion support is getting slammed. Almost half of Democrats think it's wrong (49%!), 61% of Independents, and 74% of Republicans. I acknowledge this is not the same as asking whether it should be legal, but still. Click to enlarge...

gallup 2010 party id.png


Comments:

What gets me is that so many find doctor-assisted suicide morally acceptable but hardly anyone finds suicide acceptable. They are the same thing, people. Suicide is suicide, and assisted suicide is called murder. It's not sympathetic. It's not empathetic. It's murder. We aren't dogs that need to be put to sleep when we get old and problematic. ALL life is valuable whether it be the woman battling breast cancer for the fourth time or the baby conceived through rape or the 98-year-old with dimensia or the convicted felon in jail. Every life has value.

Posted by: ArkCatholicGirl at May 28, 2010 9:23 AM


I'm someone who really subscribes to the LTI approach to abortion debates - in which case, the goal is to have the "whether it is moral" to "whether it should be legal". In our case, we just need those two things to match and we're gold.

The reason being though, if it IS immoral, then why? It's either murder, or the equivalent of a tooth pulling. In other words, if I'm wrong about its immorality, I'll be happy to switch to the pro-choice side.

The pool of people that consider it "immoral" but "should be legal" simply astounds me. It makes no logical sense. At least the pro-choice people that consider it moral are honest.

Posted by: Alex at May 28, 2010 10:15 AM


I would have LOVED to see a breakdown of the moral vs immoral for these:

1) in case of rape or incest
2) Sex Selection abortions
3) MINOR fixable by surgery birth defects

It would have been very interesting to see what the differences would have been.

Of course, does Gallup ask this question not knowing abortion is legal for ALL NINE MONTHS of pregnancy? Or are they still assuming its only legal for the first trimester?

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at May 28, 2010 10:27 AM


Recently, the Center for Morality in Public Life hosted a discussion on the connection between euthanasia and current trends in higher education. Some of your readers might be interested to take a look.

Posted by: Andrew Haines at May 28, 2010 10:48 AM


59% are okay with premarital sex.
54% are okay with having a baby out of wedlock.
Presumably, everyone who is okay with having a baby out of wedlock is also okay with premarital sex.
So 5% are okay with premarital sex, but not okay with those couples having children.
Where do these 5% stand on abortion, I wonder?

Posted by: Kelsey at May 28, 2010 10:51 AM


Sorry, typo: I meant 4%.

Posted by: Kelsey at May 28, 2010 10:52 AM


"Of course, does Gallup ask this question not knowing abortion is legal for ALL NINE MONTHS of pregnancy? Or are they still assuming its only legal for the first trimester?
Posted by: LizFromNebraska at May 28, 2010 10:27 AM"

I assume you mean not informing those surveyed that abortion is legal through all nine months, considering that Gallup is the research arm of Banned Parenthood itself.

Quite frankly, the best people I've ever met had serious mental handicaps. They would now be prime candidates for abortion. Ironic, isn't it, that Democrats claim to value all types of people, yet are systematically eliminating those who don't fit a certain set. Down Syndrome? Not worthy. Poor? Not worthy. Black? Not worthy.

Ouch.

Posted by: MaryRose at May 28, 2010 4:15 PM


I assume you mean not informing those surveyed that abortion is legal through all nine months, considering that Gallup is the research arm of Banned Parenthood itself.
You're thinking of the Guttmacher Institute, Mary. Gallup is a mainstream polling establishment that conducts surveys on all sorts of issues, not just abortion.

Posted by: Kelsey at May 28, 2010 4:40 PM


Oh, dang. All those darn G names. Thank you, Kelsey. I'm chagrined.

Posted by: MaryRose at May 28, 2010 4:52 PM


Hey, brain farts happen to the best of us :)

Posted by: Kelsey at May 28, 2010 5:00 PM


Kelsey, I don't know about that. I think it's a matter of interpretation.

I would say that having sex outside of marriage is wrong, but that having a baby outside of marriage is fine, especially if those were two questions on the same survey--for just the reason you pointed out. The act that created the child was wrong, but having the child that has been created thusly is the right thing to do.

And it's quite possible that people who answered that it was moral to have sex outside of marriage but not children simply believe that one should be in a marriage relationship when trying to conceive, but aren't necessarily making a statement about children who are "accidents" (not that I agree with such a position).

Posted by: ycw at May 28, 2010 6:35 PM


"Quite frankly, the best people I've ever met had serious mental handicaps. They would now be prime candidates for abortion."

That's because most people recognize severe mental retardation for what it is: a deleterious, terminal condition. It is not something to be celebrated. It's a burden on the family of the afflicted and on society itself. A dollar invested into the mentally infirm is a dollar that will never be recovered.

Posted by: Marissa at May 28, 2010 8:23 PM


"That's because most people recognize severe mental retardation for what it is: a deleterious, terminal condition."

Marissa, seriously, do you even know what the word "terminal" means? Go and look it up.

Being mentally handicapped is no more a terminal condition than simply being alive is.

The rest of your statement is unbelievably callous even for you.

Posted by: Lori Pieper at May 29, 2010 1:35 AM


"...yet terminating fetuses and embryos who are not even technically alive is ok?"

**************************

Define "technically alive".

I remember the basic rules we observed way back in elementary school science was something along the lines of: being alive means requiring food and oxygen while growth takes place.

The instant sperm meets egg, all three of these conditions are met.

If your basis for supporting the right to terminate fetuses and embryos is based on the idea that they are "not technically alive", then you've either got to change your position or rebuild your case from scratch.

Posted by: Laurie at May 29, 2010 1:44 AM


Marissa: I am paraphrasing, but every once in a while something is said that causes one to take notice. A speaker in a forum said: "We...(speaking of those in the panel and most people at large)...are all temporarily able-bodied." When applied to ourselves we recognize how true it is, how fragile the human condition is.

Likewise the question of whether an individual who is not, nor probably never will be "able-bodied" is essentially a value judgement. You judge a severely retarded individual as basically devoid of value. But for you and the rest of us who are temporarily "able bodied" the presumption of value is tenuous indeed. The door you open in claiming the right to proclaim another human being as devoid of value can just as quickly be used against you. Look through the annals of history, where whole classes of people of all walks of life, including women and children, become demonized and subject to maltreatment, up to and including mass slaughter.

The leftists in our country are so smug. They take for granted the liberties and protections they enjoy, even while they do not extend them to others. The anti-life subculture in our country denies the right to life to the unborn, and supports a Hitlerian solution to the severely retarded.

This is a dangerous path they are on. We call it the slippery slope. This slippery slope will now claim as its victims a great many very surprised people when they reach their elderly years only to find that Obamacare gives the power to the government to determine who has value. They will look upon the frail elderly in nursing homes as a drag on the state and upon our limited resources. Outlays of tax dollars will be directed to those who have more "value" to society. When it comes to that, Marissa, do you know how you and your loved ones will be treated?

Posted by: Jerry at May 29, 2010 4:39 AM


Lauren,

I noticed a typo in your last entry.

You forgot the period after the word 'hate'. Everything after 'hate' needs to be deleted. Thanks.

Sorry, I can't stop proofreading . . . . .it's part of my 'deleterious' condition.

Posted by: Praxedes at May 29, 2010 5:54 AM


Marissa, your comments are very eugenic in nature. You sound like Margaret Sanger or her hero Hitler, who by the way, experimented on the disabled and elderly.

Your comments sicken me. A couple from the church I attend adopted a little boy with Downs, KNOWING he would have Downs. Even though he is also severely autistic, he is a very sweet boy. I think he's about 12 years old now. His birth mom, a college student, chose not to abort him, but to give him a better chance at life. Is his life worthless? NO! Is he a burden to his parents? NO! They love him dearly.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at May 29, 2010 7:20 AM


Paraxedes...huh? Did I post here? Did someone post as me? I'm confused!

Posted by: Lauren at May 29, 2010 8:21 AM


"You judge a severely retarded individual as basically devoid of value."

That's not true. I'm sure we all laughed at the "special" kids in high school at least a few times. That's gotta be worth something. But as a productive member of society? Sorry.

"Marissa, your comments are very eugenic in nature. You sound like Margaret Sanger or her hero Hitler, who by the way, experimented on the disabled and elderly."

You should know by now that you're not going to phase me with your Hitler comparisons. I just roll my eyes when I see them because they're stupid.

"Your comments sicken me. A couple from the church I attend adopted a little boy with Downs, KNOWING he would have Downs. Even though he is also severely autistic, he is a very sweet boy. I think he's about 12 years old now. His birth mom, a college student, chose not to abort him, but to give him a better chance at life. Is his life worthless? NO! Is he a burden to his parents? NO! They love him dearly."

And some people adopt dogs with only 3 legs, and they are loving and loyal and have value for their owners too. That doesn't mean that we should make 3-legged dogs an object of veneration the way some people have with mentally retarded persons.

Posted by: Marissa at May 29, 2010 9:26 AM


"That's not true. I'm sure we all laughed at the "special" kids in high school at least a few times. That's gotta be worth something. But as a productive member of society? Sorry."

This is the most disgusting thing I've ever read.

Mods?

Posted by: Lauren at May 29, 2010 10:47 AM


Dear Prolife Lauren,

Someone else has posted under 'Lauren' using the f-bomb. I was addressing her but I see her comment is gone now.

"That doesn't mean that we should make 3-legged dogs an object of veneration the way some people have with mentally retarded persons."

Your right, Mardupissa, but I've not noticed anyone venerating you nor advocating putting you down here so try to relax before the head spins and projectile vomiting start again.

I pray for your soul in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.

Posted by: Praxedes at May 29, 2010 11:03 AM


Lauren, I agree. I found Marissa's comment very distasteful.

Special needs children are some of the sweetest children in the world. It is very sad that there are SOME people see them as less than human. :(


Posted by: LizFromNebraska at May 29, 2010 9:00 PM


Marissa, I have done a lot of work with special-needs children, since I was 15 years old. All of them were more joyful, grateful, and loving than I could ever hope to be. Even those that were seriously disabled (mentally or physically)....they seem to be far more valuable than I am. They taught me more than I taught them. You should really start thinking about what you're really saying. Karma can be a real you-know-what.

Posted by: MaryLee at May 29, 2010 9:21 PM


Dear Prolife friends,

Thank you for not taking the bait from Marissa. Sounds like an excellent time to ignore the racist, arrogant eugenicist, anyone who would call Cardinal Arinze a "witch doctor" is not worthy of your responses. You are very wise not to waste your time. God bless you all, especially those who have worked with special needs and handicapped children. I am sure you will have a special jewel in your crown in heaven.

Posted by: Prolifer L at May 30, 2010 4:34 PM


Mods sorry for the double post my computer was acting up.

Posted by: Prolifer L at May 30, 2010 4:38 PM


That's not true. I'm sure we all laughed at the "special" kids in high school at least a few times. That's gotta be worth something. But as a productive member of society? Sorry.

And some people adopt dogs with only 3 legs, and they are loving and loyal and have value for their owners too. That doesn't mean that we should make 3-legged dogs an object of veneration the way some people have with mentally retarded persons.
Posted by: Marissa at May 29, 2010 9:26 AM

Marissa,

I never once laughed at the mentally handicapped individuals, in elementary, middle, or high school. I continue to show respect for those individuals. You may be sure, but you are wrong. Not all of us are as calloused, disrespectful, and hurtful of our fellow man as you.

Your comments clearly indicate that you have limited experience with the mentally handicapped. I'm sorry for you. The disabled bring out our compassion, our love, and our humanity. They teach us to care for those who need our caring.

I cannot imagine anyone who has any personal experience with the mentally handicapped saying something as calloused as what you have stated. Perhaps the anonymity of the internet and the desire to spark venomous feelings has caused you to make bolder statements than you otherwise might. I will keep your wellbeing in my prayers.

Posted by: MaryRose at May 30, 2010 9:52 PM


Marissa,
I have worked with the developmentally disabled and mentally handicapped for just over two years now and my husband has worked with these individuals for four years. Unfortuantly, many still view individuals with developmental disabilities and mental retardation as "defective" or "broken" and unable to take care for themselves and unable to partake in life in any real way. These and other misconceptions are based on misperceptions, fantasies, sterotypes, and ignorance.

More important than IQ scores is the fact that all individuals with developmental disabilities are capable of learning. Most individuals with developmental disabilities in the United States are “mainstreamed” into regular schools. They attend regular classes for some subjects and attend special classes for other subjects and continue to graduate from high school, while others with more severe disabilities still attend regular schools but are placed in an all day special needs classroom or attend a school just for those with disabilities where they can receive more intensive treatment.

A large percentage of adults with mental retardation and developmental disabilities live semi-independently in assisted living facilities and group homes. Adults with mental retardation and developmental disabilities often hold jobs and have romantic relationships. Some high school graduates with mental retardation and developmental disabilities participate in post-secondary education. Many adults with mental retardation and developmental disabilities are capable of working in the community, but some require a more structured environment.

It's important to remember that individuals with mental retardation and developmental disabilities are people too. They enjoy various hobbies and activities and have individual likes and dislikes like you and I. Also, people with mental retardation and developmental disabilities experience a full range of emotions such as sadness, anger and happiness & they respond to positive expressions of friendship and they are hurt and upset by inconsiderate behavior, just like everyone else.

No one is saying that we should "venerate" these individuals, but rather that they should be given the same rights and respect as those without disabilties and one should admire overcoming hardships and challenges such as these individuals have.

Posted by: Rachael C. at June 2, 2010 4:47 PM


That's not true. I'm sure we all laughed at the "special" kids in high school at least a few times. That's gotta be worth something. But as a productive member of society? Sorry.

I won't comment on how cruel it is to laugh at someone with disabilities, but I will adress your second point with examples of real individuals with disabilities, some friends, and some individuals I've worked with. Please note: to protect these individual's privacy, all identifying information has been changed.

C* is a 40 yr old female with Down Syndrome and mild mental retardation. She graduated from high school and lives on her own. She has supported living staff, although more in a supervisory role as she is quite bright and independent. She works at two jobs, including a restaraunt where has worked for 14 years.

D* is a 20 male with autism and severe mental retardation, residing at a residential facility for individuals with developmental disabilities. He is non-verbal (meaning he is not able to speak), but can express his wants and needs through limited sign language. He is able to dress and bath himself with limited assistance and can do laundry and prepare simple meals with supervision. This past spring, he graduated from the facility's high school and received a certificate of completion. In the fall, he will be moving out of the facility and into a supported living apartment with room-mates. He enjoys assisting sorting and hanging clothes at the local community center's clothing room and will start work at a supervised workshop in the fall.

R* is a 35 year old male with Asperger's, a form of autism where the individual has the symptoms of autism, but normal or above normal intellegence. This individual lives independently and has earned an associate's degree in computer sciences through a local community college and has held various jobs over the years.

Posted by: Rachael C. at June 2, 2010 5:23 PM


Rachel,

It should also be noted that romantic relationships, holding down a job, and living as an individual are not very good determining factors for a person's worth or wholeness. Not saying that those with mental disabilities can't do any/all of those things (depending of course on the severity), but that they don't define your worth!

If we defined one's worth by their health or their ability to perform a job or their relationship status, we would all be considered worthless at some time in our lives and by Marisa's reasoning, none of us would be worthy of life.

On that vein, perhaps Marisa is onto something and we should all make note. Since we are, none of us, whole, perhaps we should have more respect for those who we consider "broken"... for their disabilities, their "brokenness", is at least recognized and known. Mine I struggle to acknowledge (and remind myself of) daily.

Posted by: MaryRose at June 2, 2010 9:52 PM


Mary Rose, I understand what you're saying, however I was just trying to get Marissa to think in terms of compassion and to understand that these individuals are more like us than different.

Posted by: Rachael C. at June 3, 2010 7:40 AM


Rachel,

Oh, I get that. I was just adding, not disagreeing. XD

Posted by: MaryRose at June 3, 2010 11:17 AM


Of course there's no response from Marissa once again...

Posted by: Rachael C. at June 3, 2010 2:05 PM