Why Americans are more anti-abortion pro-life

There's not much else to call the following post by Megan Carpentier at Jezebel other than stupid.

Trying to explain why a new Gallup poll shows the pro-life trend in America is the "new normal," Carpentier suggests the uptick is only due to Gallup suddenly referring to us anti-abortionists by the more friendly term, "pro-life":

Jezebal polls pro-life.png

The problem is, of course, Gallup has been using the same phraseology since it began asking the question in 1995, as it stated last year when the phenomenon 1st emerged: "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."...

Anyone with a cursory knowledge of polling would understand that to change a question asked over a long haul would corrupt its findings.

Furthermore, to get the most honest answers, Gallup smartly determined at the onset to call each of our groups by our preferred nomenclature.

Finally, how does Carpentier account for the big drop in abortion support after 1995, then the slow pro-abortion recovery beginning in 2001, before another big drop in 2009? Is she suggesting Gallup changes and unchanges the poll question verbiage every 1 to 8 years?

gallup 2010 americans pro-life.gif

Furthermore, as far as MSM like the Associated Press is concerned, which Carpentier quoted as the way things outta be, the terminology remains the same, actually skewed in favor of pro-aborts. (They support a "right," we oppose it.)

In fact, MSM pockets still calling us "pro-life" are being winnowed down, as NPR's recent decision demonstrates.

I've heard a lot of excuses from the other side explaining away the new pro-life majority in America, but Carpentier's has to be the dullest and sloppiest.


Comments:

Well, think about it-it is being 'anti-abortion.' Which doesn't change that its still 'pro-life'. Just like 'terminating the undesirables' was still 'mass genocidal murder of Jews.' Same thing, different words.

Posted by: Stephanie at May 17, 2010 4:08 PM


I am not sure why but I am glad America is more Pro Life than death.

Posted by: Mike at May 17, 2010 4:17 PM


I am definitely glad to see that America is becoming more and more pro-life. I am very much against it. I really pity those women that do get those abortions because they really suffer the most in all of this.

Posted by: chaosvoider at May 17, 2010 4:32 PM


Wow, paid a little visit to Jezebel's site.

How sad.

Corrupt. Vile. Worldly.

How sad.

Posted by: Ed at May 17, 2010 4:45 PM


The photos and ultrasounds images, we have seen the former secret world.

The photos of the destroyed babies have helped put the true image of abortion on center stage.

Repent or perish, says the Word of God.
Choose Life, not death...........

Posted by: John at May 17, 2010 4:57 PM


The Jezebel gals are actually doing us a little service by using "anti-abortion." They usually say "anti-choice."

And yes, the Jezebel girls are shockingly corrupt, even for me.

Posted by: Mary at May 17, 2010 5:08 PM


It's me again (from the last post)

I decided to use "MaryLee," so that I don't get confused with the other Mary posting here!

Here's something interesting: I was actually kicked off Jezebel for being pro-life. It's true! I was a popular poster there, until I got tired of "anti-choice" this and "anti-choice" that, and posted a couple of very well-worded, calm, and non-judgmental posts explaining my position. I got banned anyway (though I was attacked and called a lot of awful names). I told the moderator that to ban me from the site simply because my views differ from them is censorship, and completely uncalled for.

She (Hortense, the moderator) told me that the "girls" don't like that I used the term "abortionist." (We had been discussing George Tiller.) Hortense said, "That term upsets them."

Oh, REALLY? It UPSETS them? Sheesh!

Posted by: MaryLee at May 17, 2010 5:13 PM


I read through the comments under the article at jezebel.com and found plenty of “dull and sloppy” thoughts. Megan’s silly headline seems to work just fine for the audience there.

Posted by: Tommy R at May 17, 2010 5:15 PM


So MaryLee, what DO they call the abortionist? Doctor? Or some other euphemism?

Posted by: Lori Pieper at May 17, 2010 5:22 PM


Oh, and this is hilarious:

"Anti-abortion activists hold signs to block those held up by pro-abortion-rights activists. . ."

Right. The signs were at least 25-30 feet behind them, so they must have been deliberately blocking them! Anyone would think this was a pro-abort demonstrations, and the pro-lifers were just butting in.

Posted by: Lori Pieper at May 17, 2010 5:26 PM


Lori--YES! They call them "doctors." Doctors who "save women's lives."

Mind you, I never called anyone any sort of name, but laid out some very secular and reasonable arguments against abortion. These were met with fury, name-calling, and temper tantrums.

But the thing is this--and I tried to explain--we call a doctor who specializes in treating cancer an "oncologist." We have "neonatalogists" and "nephrologists" and "psychiatrists." We have "pediatricians" and "ophthamologists" and "neurologists." We have "endocrinologists" and "cardiologists."

But we can't say "abortionist" because it offends "girls" who need to justify their decisions. Hortense told me that my using the word "abortionist" made them feel like they were supporting "something bad."

They also like to say "abortion provider." Provider!

Posted by: MaryLee at May 17, 2010 5:57 PM


Posted by: MaryLee at May 17, 2010 5:57 PM

My gynocologist also does abortions. So how do we refer to her profession? (Oh, I know, baby killer blah, blah, blah)

Posted by: John at May 17, 2010 4:57 PM

What is it with your tired religious arguments. As if anybody really cares!!!!

Posted by: chaosvoider at May 17, 2010 4:32 PM

Pity all you want. I know that you refuse to believe it; but many of us are just fine after our surgical procedure. Really. Actually, don't waste your pity on us - unless, of course, it makes you feel good.

Posted by: Tommy R at May 17, 2010 5:15 PM

Examples, Tommy Boy?

You guys are funny. Jezebel is a liberal pro-choice site but you think they're just a bunch of dirty sluts. I don't know if it's religious indoctrination; but you guys have some serious issues surrounding sex. Here's the thing - my sex organs belong to me. Why you obsess about it is truly bizarre.

Posted by: Sammi at May 17, 2010 6:37 PM


Sammi, I was a poster at Jezebel, because I love pop-culture. I don't dislike the Jezebel girls because they are "pro-choice" or because they are "sluts."

I couldn't give a horse's arse about religion. I don't like Jezebel because even though they liked my thoughts about, say, Robert Downey Jr.'s comeback and why I defend Lady Gaga, they couldn't stomach the fact that I was against abortion, and wasn't a Bible beater. I don't like the girls on Jezebel because they revealed themselves to be incapable of reason and self-control.

There are a lot of fellow writers out there who have differing opinions. I don't live in a shell. But please. After they spent hours talking about how all those who are "anti-choice" are "terrorists," I very calmly asked them why it was okay to call us "terrorists" but it's not okay to make sweeping generalizations about Muslims? (For the record, I do not believe all Muslims to be terrorists....I am mostly politically liberal, except for abortion.) They asked me to explain how I could be a woman and against "choice" and I told them my reasons, which were all secular, and all of them stemming from biology, and just pure logic.

I still read Gawker. And by the by, the editor of Gawker has emailed me several times (they reinstated my account), and told me that the Gawker people think the Jezebel girls are "crazy." He advised me thus: "For the love of God, stay away from Jezebel."

Posted by: MaryLee at May 17, 2010 6:48 PM


One last thing, Sammi.....

Yes, your sex organs belong to you. Once you have reproduced, that little body you have brought into existence does NOT belong to you. I am pro-sex and pro-birth control. But nothing gives anyone--me, or you, or anyone--the right to kill someone because their mere existence puts a wrench in one's plans. It is the dehumanization of an entire class of humans. You can say "embryo" and "fetus" all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the child is a child, and is human. To use the stage of life against the child, to view the child as an intruder, or an enemy, is astonishingly ludicrous and reprehensible and sad. Life is a continuum. It begins at one point and ends at another. We are persons throughout--even though we like to pretend that the unborn "become" persons, or are only persons when it suits us.

It doesn't suit me to be against abortion--it is utterly inconvenient. But after really studying this, and not just bandying about slogans and catch-phrases, I was converted from "choice" to "life" because this is a human rights issue. Nobody has a right to die because his or her mommy doesn't want a child.

To be sure, we do not have a "right" to have children. That is a privilege. We DO have a right to exist. Nobody--not even our mothers--have a right to deny us life. The rights of the unborn are not diametrically opposed to women's rights....they are intrinsically linked. We will never actually have any peace or any equality until we view our unborn children as those who deserve to live.

Posted by: MaryLee at May 17, 2010 6:55 PM


Sammi,

I pray that one day you will realize how empty your life is and devoid of meaning and fulfillment.

Now I know that you can reply back with a laundry list of what keeps you busy and claim that you're fulfilled.

But you won't know true fulfillment, true peace or true love outside of Jesus Christ.

His Spirit provides an oasis of Love, Joy and Peace in this corrupt world.

You simply don't know what you're missing.

Posted by: Ed at May 17, 2010 6:56 PM


Sammi uses the faulty logic so common in the pro-abortion community. If my brother was developing in my mother's womb, how is his body hers? Only if Lincoln never freed the slaves could this be true. Humans don't procreate by hatching out of eggs. We develop in utero. My body is not my mother's, nor is my brother's body. Therefore, my mother's sexually reproductive organs are temporarily our residence until we develop to term. After our birth, our mother immediately regains control of her sexual reproductive organs. Pro-abortionists may be the most impatient human beings in all of human history. The ancient Romans at least had the decency to wait until children were born to abandon them outdoors (exposure).

Posted by: ninek at May 17, 2010 6:57 PM


Ed, do you think offering your prayers to Sammi is going to help?

Isn't it possible to not bring up God in these conversations?

The more religion is brought into this, the less likely anyone will be to listen to us. I am not saying that you shouldn't have your beliefs, or even keep them to yourself...But as a former "choicer" ....You must realize that it works against you. The more people said they were "praying" for me, the more I dug in my heels.

I am pro-life without being religious. I do believe that Jesus would want us to speak.... We can help your cause. There are a lot of us, and we have some really good arguments.

Posted by: MaryLee at May 17, 2010 7:00 PM


Thanks, MaryLee. Excellently stated all the way.

I wonder what the difference is between "abortion provider" and "abortionist"? I guess they have to snatch at any means to pacify themselves they can, just in case they wake up and realize their own lack of logic. Sad.

Posted by: Lori Pieper at May 17, 2010 7:04 PM


By the way, Ed, I hope I didn't come across as disrespectful! I have a priest friend I spar with a lot. I've told him that my friends at PLAGAL (Pro Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians) should be more in the spotlight, but he feels that to unite with them is to go against God's Word.

But though I am not religious, I would have to wonder, why would God want us alienating anyone who believes in the dignity of life, especially for the unborn?

We should all try to work together.

Posted by: MaryLee at May 17, 2010 7:06 PM


Posted by: MaryLee at May 17, 2010 7:06 PM

Have you visited SecularProLife.org? If not, I think you'd like it. I am a Christian myself, but I find that it's good to be able to make secular arguments on abortion and there are a number of excellent secular arguments and brochures on that site. Not to mention a helpful (but very slow) forum for bouncing ideas off of.

Posted by: Keli Hu at May 17, 2010 7:41 PM


There really is no such thing as a secular argument against abortion. Even if you, yourself, believe that your reasons are perfectly secular, you're still using them to support a cause that entirely revolves around religion. It would be like taking a "secular" stand on some aspect of interpreting the bible. It just doesn't work.

Posted by: Marissa at May 17, 2010 7:53 PM


Posted by: MaryLee at May 17, 2010 5:13 PM


"She (Hortense, the moderator) told me that the "girls" don't like that I used the term "abortionist." !"

---------------------------------------------------

MaryLee,

How long do you think the 'dead babies are us' damsels would tolerate a blunt old red neck like me?

Posted by: yor bro ken at May 17, 2010 8:04 PM


Hey MaryLee,

I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Sammi just sounds so miserable. She doesn't realize it of course. It's like telling someone who works as a waitress in a smoke-filled strip joint, filled with creepy guys, making minimum wage, that they could have a job making 10 times the money doing marketing for a pharmaceutical firm - and they don't believe you.

My primary concern of course is not to convert her to a Pro-Life position. I really do care about her. I care about the quality of her life now and the quality of her life in eternity.

And yes, I believe my prayers do help, but it will ultimately be Sammi's decision whether or not she turns from her present life to seek the new Abundant Life waiting for her in Christ.

And you never have to worry about offending me MaryLee. I hope I don't offend or alienate you. I'm happy to work with you in our common cause, to defend and protect innocent children from slaughter.

But I must warn you, I care about you're eternal destiny as well! :)

Don't think I won't try to politely convert you if I get the chance! :)

That said, let's save some babies!

Posted by: Ed at May 17, 2010 8:04 PM


Hi Marissa.

"There really is no such thing as a secular argument against abortion"

Please point out the religious aspect of the following syllogism.

1) It is morally evil to directly kill an innocent human being.
2) Abortion directly kills an innocent human being.
Therefore, abortion is morally evil.

I assure you I can defend both the major and minor premise based on entirely secular grounds, so let me know if you think there is some "religious" (whatever that means) assumption buried in either premise.

"Even if you, yourself, believe that your reasons are perfectly secular, you're still using them to support a cause that entirely revolves around religion."

How does one determine whether or not a particular cause "revolves around" religion? What criteria is used to determine this and what is a good secular reason to hold to such criteria? I'm not even sure how to understand the term "revolves around."

"It would be like taking a "secular" stand on some aspect of interpreting the bible. It just doesn't work."

This is a completely flat analogy. I would really like some evidence as to why abortion is a religious issue.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 17, 2010 8:07 PM


Posted by: Sammi at May 17, 2010 6:37 PM


"Here's the thing - my sex organs belong to me."

--------------------------------------------------

Wait..... I hear the sounds of pigs flying, hell freezing over, and a lone democRAT defining 'rich' and 'fare share'.

Sammi actually posted something that we can all agree on.

Well there may be some Chinese bureaucrats or Muslim Imams that would disagree, but they do not frequent our community of thoughtful commentators.

Posted by: yor bro ken at May 17, 2010 8:11 PM


Marissa,

Of course you can make a secular argument against abortion, silly!

There are many, many people who don't believe in God that believe it is morally or ethically wrong to kill someone.

Consider:

Marshall, TX (LifeNews.com) -- A Texas man is the latest convicted under state law in the death of an unborn child in an automobile accident. James Stephen Payne was sentenced to 20 years Thursday after pleading guilty in 71st District Court to intoxicated manslaughter.

Payne, 21, of Hallsville was charged in conjunction with the death of an unborn child that occurred as a result of a July 29, 2008, traffic accident.

A Harrison County grand jury indicted Payne for murder, a first degree felony punishable by a term of five to 99 years or life. In return for his guilty plea, however, charges were reduced to a second degree felony, which carries a sentence of between two and 20 years in Texas Department of Criminal Justice system.

No mention of God here Marissa. You don't have to know God to know that killing an unborn child is wrong.

Posted by: Ed at May 17, 2010 8:25 PM


Sammi,

A fetus will and can never be your sex organs. Please pass this fact on to the girls.

Posted by: Praxedes at May 17, 2010 8:27 PM


Posted by: Marissa at May 17, 2010 7:53 PM

Every single secular Bible scholar in the world would like a word with you.

Aside from which, unless you're going to argue that "killing people is bad" is a position that "entirely revolves around religion," then what you said is the second least-logical thing you've said since your debut on this blog (the first being "slaves aren't people unless people who are people say that they're people"). And if you are going to argue that, then Richard Dawkins would like a word with you.

Posted by: Keli Hu at May 17, 2010 9:05 PM


MaryLee,
She should have been happy that they still had a conscience.

Posted by: myrtle miller at May 17, 2010 9:26 PM


When people speak of "secular" arguments, I assume they just mean arguments from basic reason that all people have to some degree.

I would say that the arguments against abortion are certainly easy for a non-religious person to arrive at. They are not specifically religious arguments.

Although I have yet to hear on what philosophical grounds an atheist can believe that all people have a right to live.

Posted by: Louise at May 17, 2010 9:38 PM


An atheist rationale for being pro-life?

Humans reproduce like most mammals which means our young have to spend part of our early life dependent on our mothers. It is temporary and just the way we've evolved. Pro-life means being patient enough to wait until the infant is viable before adopting him or her to another family.

Posted by: Ninek at May 17, 2010 9:54 PM


secular argument: scientific evidence like fetal development and advances in ultrasound technology like 3D and 4D which show clearer pictures of babies in the womb.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at May 17, 2010 11:11 PM


Come on Jill!!!!

Try giving credit where credit is due!! They DID manage to get ALL of their pro-abort protesters at the March into one picture!

That's got to count for something!

;-)

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at May 18, 2010 3:29 AM


Marissa, what a ridiculous statement. I am friends with pro-life atheists. As Nat Hentoff (liberal, atheist, Jewish, pro-life Libertarian) has said: "I am pro life because I can read biology."

If I steal something from you, then you would be a victim of a crime, would you not? Is it a crime because the Ten Commandments say so, or because it is simply, secularly morally wrong to steal?

There are those who purport to be religious and still believe in "choice." How do you explain those? I am not religious at all. My eyes roll whenever someone quotes Bible scriptures as a pro-life argument.

But biology tells us, as well as logic and reason, that life is a continuum, that it begins at one point and ends at another. Any argument about the location of the child, or the development of the child is merely functionalist and manipulates facts and uses semantics to dehumanize what is clearly, and obviously, a human being.

The unborn child is not your property. He or she is NOBODY'S property. The mother does not own the unborn child. She has no right at all to have her child dismembered and incinerated because she's "not ready" to have a child. "Doctors" who perform abortions are not doctors. It is against the Hippocratic oath, entirely. They know what they are doing, and they know it is unfair and destructive. But they make some good money off of it.

Abortion is not a service--it is a disgrace. Ethically and morally. If it coincides with religion, so be it. But so does being against murder, rape, adultery, and dishonesty.

Posted by: MaryLee at May 18, 2010 9:13 AM


Louise, you should look up Nat Hentoff. He's an amazing pro-life atheist. Also, Judy Ferris doesn't understand how one can be atheist and pro choice.....and she has a most interesting story to tell. I suggest you look her up.

Also, it might interest you to know that Christopher Hitchens---the one who hates Mother Teresa---believes the unborn should have rights.

Posted by: MaryLee at May 18, 2010 10:01 AM


I just went to the Jezebel site. Wow. Vile, disgusting comments about the two men(in the photo) who were brave enough to stand and admit they regret being involved in abortion. They are heroes to me.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 18, 2010 12:00 PM


Slate had an article on why more folks identify as prolife.

One commenter noted that more young people know that those getting abortions aren't in desperate circumstances:

"I think the shift towards the pro-life stance is an inevitable consequence of something rather obvious: the excuses for needing abortions are getting thin. This isn't the 60's anymore. Birth control is cheap and widely available, and little stigma is attached to it. The vast majority of young people know about it, have access to it, and use it if necessary.

Probably the best statistics on abortion can be found here:

http://www.guttmacher.org/sections/abortion.php

"It is quite clear that abortions committed by 13-year-olds who were raped by their uncle are ultra rare, and abortions committed by sorority chicks whose partner "forgot" the condom, or married couple who trusted in the pill alone, are the norm. Indeed, nearly half of abortions are committed by women who have already had one in the past! These are hardly people that anyone is going to feel sorry for.

"As birth control gets better (and, like anything else, it will), the number of legitimate excuses for abortion will decline...and its support along with it."

http://www.slate.com/id/2253942?wpisrc=xs_wp_0001

Posted by: hippie at May 18, 2010 4:12 PM


I can't speak for anyone else. I only speak from my experience. At 18 yrs old, I had an abortion. At first I was extremely relieved. After about 8 yrs of age, I finally came out of my denial. I now regret it completely. It was the worst mistake of my life. It's been 12 yrs and the sting is not as bad but I still have pangs of regret. I suppose some women do not have any regret at all, but I did.

Posted by: Sarah at May 24, 2010 12:35 AM


I can't speak for anyone else. I only speak from my experience. At 18 yrs old, I had an abortion. At first I was extremely relieved. After about 8 yrs, I finally came out of my denial. I now regret it completely. It was the worst mistake of my life. It's been 12 yrs and the sting is not as bad but I still have pangs of regret. I suppose some women do not have any regret at all, but I did and still do.

Posted by: Sarah at May 24, 2010 12:38 AM