Abortion Support Drops Precipitously
by Motte Brown on 05/11/2009 at 1:26 PM
A new Pew study found that support for legalized abortion has dropped precipitously since last August, from 54% to 46%. Here's a portion of the summary from Pewresearch.org:
The proportion saying that abortion should be legal in all or most cases has declined to 46% from 54% last August. The decline in support for legal abortion has come entirely in the share saying abortion should be legal in most cases (from 37% to 28%); 18% say abortion should be legal in all cases, which is virtually unchanged from last August (17%). Currently, 44% say abortion should be illegal in most (28%) or all cases (16%), up slightly since last August (41%).
Interestingly, the Pew study was conducted (March 31-April 21), which was right in the middle of the Red Envelope Day campaign. I'm not saying there's a link. After all, we've seen public opinion on the question of whether abortion should be legal even up before. Still, it's interesting to consider.
What do you think? Could the Red Envelope Day campaign have had such an effect? Or has President Obama's pro-abortion actions in his first 100 days galvanized a nation to rethink her pro-abortion mindset?
Is it possible that the creator of Red Envelope Day Christ Otto was on to something when he said a revival is coming to America?
1. Mark W said the following at 1:47 PM on May 11:
Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that the Red letter campaign had much, if anything, to do with this. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people who had even heard about it, given that it was never mentioned by the MSM. I also don't think Obama has much of anything to do with it either. Apart from evangelicals and hardcore-pro-murder-feminists, most people have been paying a lot more attention to the economy, the middle east, piracy, swine flu, and (insert crisis of the moment here) than the infanticide issue.
I think this really just has to do with the fact that younger generations have been increasingly more pro-life for a long time. There are lots of possible explanations for this - I don't think we can ignore the fact that pro-life parents tend to have (and keep!) a lot more kids than pro-murder parents; and it's likely that their views are passed along to their children. Hence it makes sense that over time, the pro-murder movement would be naturally self-limiting and the pro-life movement would gradually but noticeably be gaining ground.
2. obewan said the following at 2:00 PM on May 11:
I would be careful to only view the Pew results for the last 2 years because the other data in the graph came from a different source and may not have had the exact same survey questions or sample population.
I would vote that Red Envelope Day might have had an impact. And, if the survey were taken on a different day, people in a different mood may have answered differently. Some people are prone to waver on this issue.
3. Tami said the following at 2:25 PM on May 11:
I think Red Envelope Campaign could have had an impact.
I think Otto may be on to something.
I think people might be re-thinking their stances.
I'm sure the Lord is at work in response to the prayers of His people.
*And* I think the timing of the survey compared to the Red Envelope campaign might not have been coincidental. It's entirely possible that someone at Pew *did* hear about it, and got curious about whether or not it would have any sort of statistically notable impact.
4. A.M.C. said the following at 2:49 PM on May 11:
From a purely statistical point of view, one could say that there might be an effect. After all, it seems to me that a 11% swing from 41-54 to 44-46 can't be accounted by random sampling alone-- given a sample size of 1,521, the margin error is just +/- 2.6%, and 11% > 2 * 2.6% means that the change of public opinion is probably real unless the sampling in the latest poll is really biased (please correct me if I got my math wrong).
==> But then again, 44-46 means that the pro-life position is still in the minority (don't you need 2/3 support to change public policy anyway?) Besides, this is just one poll, and the fact that millions of red envelopes were actually received were not reported until later (and even then, not by the mainstream media) meant that the news might not have gotten out until later. Thus, my hypothesis is that it's not that the Red Envelope Campaign caused public opinion to change, but rather that changes in public opinion were reflected in the results from the Red Envelope Campaign and this recent poll.
5. DannieA said the following at 2:58 PM on May 11:
well I personally think that now that we are not ostricising women and teenagers that get pregnant out of wedlock, these women are not prone to sneak off and get an abortion but feel more supported in having their baby.
6. RF said the following at 4:50 PM on May 11:
I pray that the numbers of those who support abortion become fewer and fewer every day as God works in their hearts and they understand that a fetus is a life from conception. Thanks for posting the results of the survey.
7. elizabeth said the following at 5:18 PM on May 11:
I sincerely hope these numbers are wrong, frankly. The neo-conservative trends in this country lately frighten me as we take away more and more freedoms from the people who need them most.
8. Cassandra said the following at 6:28 PM on May 11:
I sincerely hope these numbers are wrong, frankly. The neo-conservative trends in this country lately frighten me as we take away more and more freedoms from the people who need them most.
Who are we taking freedoms away from? From mothers who want to kill their babies before they have a chance to be born? What about those babies' freedom? They certainly don't get a say. I would say babies need their freedoms most. Is there anyone more vulnerable and defenseless?
It helps me to not think about them as babies, actually, but as adults. Right now, in America, 1/3 of people don't get a chance at life. That's staggering. What makes me or you have any more right to life than them?
******************************
I used to be a pro-choice Christian until I got born again a few years ago and the Holy Spirit gave me a new heart. Now I see how wrong abortion is. Perhaps this is happening to others.
9. Hannah C. said the following at 6:36 PM on May 11:
Freedom to kill an unborn child is not a freedom which should be allowed. Period.
And quite honestly, most of the trends in this country are anything but conservative. Rather they're getting more liberal by the day -- and THAT worries me..because I can easily see the time coming when even speaking one's conservative beliefs will be illegal, or refusing to provide abortions and referring the patient to another doctor will be met with punishment. That should not happen.
10. Chris said the following at 7:31 PM on May 11:
A few data points do not a trend make. Check out the drop around 2001 and the subsequent increase.
Before calling this precipitous, you might want to wait for some more data to come in.
11. Chris said the following at 7:46 PM on May 11:
Mark W writes:
There are lots of possible explanations for this - I don't think we can ignore the fact that pro-life parents tend to have (and keep!) a lot more kids than pro-murder parents; and it's likely that their views are passed along to their children. Hence it makes sense that over time, the pro-murder movement would be naturally self-limiting and the pro-life movement would gradually but noticeably be gaining ground.
If this is true, how did the pro-murder group come to be in existence in the first place?
12. BDB said the following at 7:55 PM on May 11:
elizabeth (#7) - the people who need them most - you're referring to unborn children, right?
13. beatrice81 said the following at 11:23 PM on May 11:
I wouldn't put a lot of stock in one outlier poll. Public opinion on abortion rights really hasn't changed much in the last 35 years, so it's highly improbable that any significant changed occured in a single year.
And I'm rather glad I live in a country where civil rights are not yanked back and forth by the latest survey.
14. John said the following at 3:45 AM on May 12:
On paper a purely logical nonreligious argument should convince people that abortion is wrong. Perhaps this has something to do with it as well.
15. Louise from Chicago said the following at 6:02 AM on May 12:
I seriously doubt the red envelop thing had any affect at all.
I did not even hear of it away from this blog.
16. farmer Tom said the following at 10:58 AM on May 12:
15. Louise from Chicago said,
I did not even hear of it away from this blog.
I've gotta agree with Louise. I never heard anything about the red envelop thing anywhere except Boundless.
17. Jeremy said the following at 11:58 AM on May 12:
"I used to be a pro-choice Christian until I got born again a few years ago and the Holy Spirit gave me a new heart. Now I see how wrong abortion is."
That is an interesting statement, in a couple of ways. Do you think that you were a Christian before you were born again?
And as another point to ponder, take note of the phrase "born again" -- Jesus chose the metaphor of new (spiritual) birth to signify the start of a new spiritual life, perhaps because of the physical analogue? If indeed God is as rabidly anti-abortion as many would claim, is it not odd that he did not instead choose "conceived anew" or something along those lines?
18. Motte Brown said the following at 12:25 PM on May 12:
Jeremy:
What I find interesting is that God did make a point of saying that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. And since there was never a time when the Son did not exist, he existed during and after conception. Just like 3,500 babies who exist for only a few weeks (or more) before they are aborted each day.19. BDB said the following at 12:51 PM on May 12:
Beatrice81 wrote:
>>And I'm rather glad I live in a country where civil rights are not yanked back and forth by the latest survey.Dredd Scott and Roe v. Wade which strip civil rights away from a category of people - redefining them as not persons?
20. Cassandra said the following at 1:26 PM on May 12:
That is an interesting statement, in a couple of ways. Do you think that you were a Christian before you were born again?
Yeah, I do. I think I was "saved" and I believed in Jesus and all that. But I wasn't walking with God the way I should have been. I had one foot in the world as they say. I reached a low point in my life where I had nothing left to comfort me but the Word of God, and God worked through that suffering to make me a new creation (2 Cor 5:17). Before that point I wasn't quite as "on fire for God" as I had been previously, and one of the views that changed when God set me on fire :) was my view about abortion. Although I look at everything differently now.
21. beatrice81 said the following at 11:26 PM on May 12:
Cassandra writes: "Who are we taking freedoms away from? From mothers who want to kill their babies before they have a chance to be born? What about those babies' freedom?"
Please cite the law that allows anyone to take or use the body of someone else, against that person's will. There is none.
There's also no such thing as a right to live off someone else's body, while posing a threat to their life and health. This right doesn't exist for adults and children ... nor does it exist for fetuses.
That's the law.
22. elizabeth said the following at 6:33 AM on May 13:
I would say that a fetus is not a person, it is a developing mass of cells and nerves and tissue. The rights of the parent supercede the rights of that fetus. I find it ironic and sad that focus on the family is so radically opposed to things such as the UN rights of the child or allowing children to make their own decisions regarding education, sex, drugs, and the like, and that they are constantly saying parents' rights are being stripped away, yet they oppose women the right to make decisions about their own bodies. I will forever be grateful that I live in a country where we have moved beyond the abortion ethics debate and it's no longer a political issue, but a private matter between a woman and doctor, exactly the way it should be.
23. Motte Brown said the following at 9:01 AM on May 13:
beatrice81:
Wow. Inferring that a pre-born baby is equivalent to a parasite or a slave owner or a rapist or a murderer is straight from the pit of hell!elizabeth:
Again, wow. Even rabid pro-abortion defenders admit it's a baby and not just a "clump of cells." This is a photo of a 7 week old pre-born baby. It's the age most mothers abort their children. Does this look like a clump of cells?But even when a baby is a clump of cells, when it's the first day after fertilization, the baby's features, including sex, hair and eye color, have already been determined.
24. Hannah C. said the following at 10:09 AM on May 13:
I have never understood the "fetus is not a person" argument. There is a Facebook group called "As a former fetus..I am naturally pro-life!" or something very similar. That's one of my reasons I've never understood that argument. Fetus turns to baby, baby turns to adult - how is it that one is so devalued and the other is so valued? How can one be for abortion when abortion means your mother could have killed you if she wanted to?
Add that to the double murder charges if someone kills a pregnant woman, which goes back to the idea that a baby is a baby only if it is wanted..I don't get it. I really don't. There's a bumper sticker which says "If it's not a baby, you're not pregnant." I agree with that.
Or maybe I've just been "twisted" by the fact that I have eight younger siblings, and each one has been eagerly anticipated by all of us. I've felt those babies kick - and I've poked them trying to get them to kick (my mother was very tolerant of me doing this somehow, maybe cause I'm the oldest, lol). And now they are all born and I love each of them. Trust me - if my mom had ever had an abortion for some God-forsaken reason...it would not be a non-person we would be missing, it would be a very real person.
And one of my good friends was born to a teenage mother. That friend is one of the kindest people I have ever met. If her mother had had an abortion she would have missed out.
Considering the amount abortion factors into politics, how much it shows up in campaign promises, etc. - I would say that it is DEFINITELY still a political debate and the ethics are still being debated. The law may say otherwise, but the people don't.
The idea that women should be able to have an abortion at any time for whatever reason they want...that scares me. I think the presence of abortion also goes along with the devaluation of children - such that they become simply a nuisance to be avoided - a mother shouldn't be allowed to breastfeed on a plane, crying babies shouldn't be allowed on planes, children shouldn't be allowed in restaurants...all of this is ridiculous and wrong. I can look at a baby, even a crying one, and feel empathy toward him or her, not go "ewww, baby, gross, nuisance, get the annoying kid OFF of me" (NOT trying to say anyone here is like that, no worries!). Other people in the world can no longer do that. They look at kids and they see an animal, not a person. And THAT is WRONG.
--
The UN Rights of the Child treaty is scary because of the effects it could have in the US. This is a country where a photographer gets sued for not photographing a gay couple's wedding, but instead referring them to someone else - and I believe the gay couple won. Private businesses can no longer reserve the right to refuse service, apparently. Take this environment and give it a treaty which says "Children can pick their own friends, religion, parents can only advice and not lay down the law" and place it in the US - a country where we stretch the law to its furthest limits, a country where we do not modify treaties - and I can EASILY see rebellious children suing their parents for the right to hang out with druggies, or be Satanist, or something. The parents then have no rights to raise their children as they want - and the state can come in and take their children even when they are not being remotely abusive. THAT scares me. A lot.
25. Jo said the following at 10:28 AM on May 13:
beatrice81, I gotta echo Motte's 'wow'.
Your scenario:
An evil foetus, floating around somewhere in the ether, preys on an innocent woman whose womb he likes the look of, violently implants himself in her body, feeds off her, makes her fat and tired and forces her to put all her energy into his growth, entirely against her will and without her permission.
No one can be crazy enough to think this is the truth. The primary purpose of sex is reproduction. A baby is not an unfortunate bi-product, it's precisely what sex is for. When you have sex, even with contraception, you implicitly sign an agreement that says "I understand that a baby could result from this action, and I am choosing to do it anyway and take that risk".
Bottom line: to have sex is to offer your womb as 9 months' free accomodation for a new human being. Whether you like that or not, it's a fact. Just because you and the unborn child haven't physically signed a contract stating it, doesn't make it any less the case.
26. Jeremy said the following at 10:33 AM on May 13:
"Fetus turns to baby, baby turns to adult - how is it that one is so devalued and the other is so valued?"
The problem with this logic is that you have already started after your line in the sand. One could just as easily say before this "sperm turns to fetus", and extending the same argument then, each sperm should be valued in the same manner as an adult (with a host of ensuing consequences, including making sex morally wrong except when a fetus is conceived [and arguably even then, since many additional sperm will die]).
With you or I, we can look back at a chain of events that produced us, but that does not mean that each stage along that chain (sperm, fetilized egg, attached fetus, born child, adult) is exactly the same, or is morally equivalent. The issue is much more complex than the loudest voices on either side would lead one to believe.
27. Cassandra said the following at 11:15 AM on May 13:
The problem with this logic is that you have already started after your line in the sand. One could just as easily say before this "sperm turns to fetus"
I see the point that you're trying to make, but I disagree. A sperm cell does not turn into a fetus, spontaneously, ever. It needs to be united with an egg, after sexual reproduction. So I don't think that you could ever argue logically that sperm cells have rights.
28. Sarah P. said the following at 12:42 PM on May 13:
I think many women get abortions as a rejection of womanhood. That is, womanhood as separate from manhood. A woman can be as sexually promiscuous as a man, except for the uncomfortable fact that the baby winds up inside her. Hers is the life that changes forever.
The woman can claim victim status, saying that the baby in her womb is holding her prisoner against her will. All she is saying is that she wills that her body did not function in such a way that sex = pregnant. She is rebelling against her very biology, and against God, who made her the way she is.
The question isn't really, "Is it a baby?", but rather, "How do I make this situation go away?" People all through the world in all times have willingly murdered millions of other adults who stood in the way of their expediency. Abortion is no different, except that it can be hidden more easily.
29. Louise from Chicago said the following at 3:39 PM on May 13:
Comment 25 and others who agree, does a woman "sign an agreement" if she becomes the victim of sexual assault?
I'm not going to argue this point folks.
I just would like your opinions, please.
Thank you.
30. Jo said the following at 4:10 PM on May 13:
Louise, #30,
"Comment 25 and others who agree, does a woman "sign an agreement" if she becomes the victim of sexual assault?"
No, absolutely not. I was talking about the vast majority of pregnancies that are the result of consensual sex, and do not pose a risk to life of the mother. Really, I was just responding to beatrice81's view that a foetus is somehow an invader, rather than (in the vast majority of cases) a natural consequence of a voluntary act which people choose to engage in, being fully aware of the 'risks' involved.
Rape is very different, and the woman has clearly not made a choice to risk pregnancy in that scenario. I would say though that the foetus is still not the invader; the rapist is. Anyway like you I don't want to argue the rights and wrongs of abortion in rape cases here; it's a hugely important question but in a general discussion on abortion I think it detracts from the broader issues.
Trevor Dolby, #28,
Satire has its uses. :)
31. Cassandra said the following at 4:31 PM on May 13:
Comment 25 and others who agree, does a woman "sign an agreement" if she becomes the victim of sexual assault?
I wouldn't use that language, no.
However, rape and incest cases account for 1% of the abortions in this country (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904509.html) and I don't think that argument invalidates the 99%. Most states have laws permitting abortion in the case of rape or incest. To my knowledge, pro-lifers aren't as concerned about those laws as we were about something like FOCA.
32. anonymous said the following at 5:21 PM on May 13:
I think it's embarassing and shameful that we want to force women to have babies and yet we do so little to support them or the babies once they are born. Our country refuses to provide universal health care, doesn't want to let singles or gays and lesbians adopt these babies we are forcing into the world, and won't provide comprehensive sex education to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies and therefore abortions. The evangelicals can't have it both ways. Goodness knows not everyone is a conservative Christian, yet you want everyone to live by your morals, while you scream bloody murder and dig in your heels whenever liberals want you to live by theirs. A bit hyprocritical, no?
33. A.M.C. said the following at 5:24 PM on May 13:
Re: Beatrice and Elizabeth
While I can see your point, please at least consider the following:
You seem to consider abortion a "right" for the mother. But is this premise necessarily true? To answer this question, let's put morality aside for now and check the definition of "rights."
==> One commonly used definition of "human rights" is "natural rights," or inalienable entitlements for any human being. Such "rights" have to be universal, i.e. they cannot vary across societies. Natural rights, therefore, must be always existent since the beginning of human civilization. Abortion, therefore, fails the universality criteria, as it is a product of medical technology. Morality aside, it is more accurately described as a privilege at best. In this case, the "privilege" is granted by a social construct called "law," which is fallible and dependent on the society.
==> Now, consider the implications if the above reasoning applies. Laws, being artificial, social constructions, are inherently variable depending on the society. Therefore, it should be the laws that reflect natural rights rather than defining "rights" by the current law (the latter is essentially the tyranny of the majority). If abortion is not a right, then the argument for its legality breaks down.
34. pass the ammunition said the following at 6:11 PM on May 13:
Did they phrase the survey question the same way in both surveys? How you word something makes a huge difference in the response you get. For example:
Do you support same sex marriage?
vs.
Do you oppose homosexual marriage?
This may have had an impact, but I'm not sure.
Conservatives need to start supporting more welfare benefits for low income mothers if they are going to rally against abortion. People get mad at "welfare queens" but then offer no alternative. Many of the mainstream pro-life activist organizations also do not advocate for affordable and accessible birth control. The average woman who has an abortion is young, extremely poor, and already has at least one child. The stereotypes we have are the career woman who doesn't wish to be inconvenienced, and the scared teenager. Both of those are misleading compared to what the real statistics show.
35. k said the following at 11:31 PM on May 13:
#33- Who wants to force women to have babies??
It is embarassing and shameful the way unborn and defenseless babies are slaughtered. You were an unborn baby once.
I am a Christian, and I don't want anyone to live by "my morals." I want ppl to live by what GOD says is right.
I know it's off topic but have you ever considered that...
Universal heath care in the U.S. could very well turn into a system likes Canada's... which would be worse for the American child who would have to wait much longer for much worse care than he/she has access to now.
Also, there is tons of comprehensive sex-ed classes, info, and data out there.
36. BDB said the following at 11:53 PM on May 13:
anonymous (#33) wrote:
>>A bit hyprocritical, no?<<
No.
The majority of crisis-pregnancy centers are now run by churches.
We have universal health care for the poor, it's called Medicaid and definitely covers poor mothers.
What's hypocritical are the liberals who want to release terrorists from Guantanamo into the U.S. in the name of human rights but are OK with denying innocent children their human rights, encouraging and FUNDING their slaughter.
37. erica said the following at 9:32 AM on May 14:
I'm not getting in the argument about abortion. BDB, some of those terrorists at Guantanomo were tortured. Also, some of those persons accused of being terrorist were waterboard more than hundred times. Any body put me underwater ten times trying to drown me. I tell of planes and bombs I do not even know exists. Some of those terrorists were in the wrong at times. Before we jump to conclusion.
Its amazing how so many energy is placed in the abortion debate. yet not enough steps are taking to look after the persons who are at risk for unwanted pregnancy. This will certain the reduce the line at the clinic.
It could also be reduced because of the recession and not money available.
38. Cassandra said the following at 10:20 AM on May 14:
yet not enough steps are taking to look after the persons who are at risk for unwanted pregnancy.
There are thousands of crisis pregnancy centers around this country to support women with unwanted pregnancies, healthcare, adoption and counseling. And most of them are run by Christians.
Moreover, I don't think it's actually possible to grow up in this country without being taught in the public school system how one gets pregnant and how to use birth control.
39. BDB said the following at 6:26 PM on May 14:
erica (#38) wrote:
>>some of those terrorists at Guantanomo were tortured. Also, some of those persons accused of being terrorist were waterboard more than hundred times.<<
Three terrorists were waterboarded. Though it's clear to me that if they did it a few hundred times to those three, it was not an "effective" technique. It appears to be quite survivable. Nevertheless, it should never have been used by Americans for the simple reason that America convicted Japanese of war crimes for using waterboarding.
Which leaves us with a few hundred other terrorists, or if you prefer, enemy combatants captured on the field of battle, out of uniform, bearing arms, in direct violation of the Geneva convention. Under the laws of war, they can be executed as spies simply because they were out of uniform bearing arms. The rights of soldiers only apply to those wearing their uniforms.
This is something the German saboteurs understood in WWII - they took the trouble to wear their German uniforms as they snuck into the U.S. so they would be guaranteed treatment as prisoners of war. See this FBI history of the incident, which also provides you with the legal precedent set by Roosevelt for what to do with those captured out of uniform.
The guys still in Gitmo are the guys who support beheading teachers of girls in Afghanistan. I have zero patience for those who cry for their "rights" yet refuse to speak up about their horrible acts. Liberals who are only anti-U.S. are being internally inconsistent when it comes to human rights, that is why they have no credibility.
Remember, the first guy tried by a military commission at Gitmo was released almost immediately because, frankly, the American military officers who tried him said "five years is long enough - he was just the driver."