Family Research Council's Perkins claimed "the majority of Americans identify themselves as pro-life"; polls show otherwise
SUMMARY: On MSNBC's Hardball, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council claimed that "the majority of Americans identify themselves as pro-life," even though recent polls show otherwise.
On the March 7 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins baselessly claimed that "the majority of Americans identify themselves as pro-life." In fact, recent polls asking that exact question show that a plurality -- or even a majority -- of Americans identify themselves as "pro-choice," not "pro-life." Host Chris Matthews did not challenge Perkins's assertion.
A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, conducted February 28-March 1, found that 49 percent of respondents identify themselves as "pro-choice," compared with only 41 percent who identify themselves as "pro-life." The poll's margin of error was +/- 3 percent. Similarly, in a January 6-8 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll that asked the same question -- also with a margin of error of +/- 3 percent -- 53 percent of respondents said they consider themselves "pro-choice," compared with only 42 percent who said they are "pro-life."
From a March 7 discussion on Hardball of the recently-passed South Dakota law banning all abortions, except in cases in which a woman's life is endangered by a pregnancy:
PERKINS: We've been preparing the hearts of the people for 33 years and we see now that the majority of Americans identify themselves as pro-life. I think for the Republican Party, it's time to fish or cut bait. Do they want to use this as a political issue or do they want to advance human life -- the protection of human life?
MATTHEWS: Are you going to hold them to that?
PERKINS: Absolutely.
Even if a majority of Americans though of themselves as 'pro-life' it would only be as a result of lies. Hardly something to be proud of.
....... a typical Neocon response to something that they disagree with.........
Though*
I wonder how many people in this nation are 'pro-life' but also pro death penalty? Am I comparing apples and oranges? Maybe. However if you boil the argument down to, "When a woman has an abortion, she is killing a human being." (which MOST conservatives and pro-lifers do), they seem to forget that no matter what a convict has done, no matter how heinous, they are killing a human being - and using the guise of law to promote it. It's just sickening.
CSL
If someone were pro-life and a supporter of the death penalty, that person would probably argue that the unborn human is completely innocent and that it is wrong to kill an innocent human. Meanwhile, a criminal facing the death penalty has been found guilty of doing something really heinous that the state has found deserving of the penalty of death.
1. Also ... a note about the whole pro-life/pro-choice thing. An interesting fact: Groups like Planned Parenthood, NARAL, Feminist Majority etc. lobby on behalf of abortion for all nine months of pregnancy, without parental notification, and without restrictions ... According to polls, no more than 27% of people agree with this position! [link to www.pollingreport.com] If, in fact, PP and NARAL are the epitome of "pro-choice," the vast majority of the country disagrees with them!
2. Also, this poll by Zogby, "New National Abortion Poll Shows Majority of Americans are Pro-Life," although from 2004, [link to www.zogby.com] , contradicts MM.
That's my 2 cents ...
I personally find abortion wrong, but I am willing to let other people decide for themselves. According to the Zogby poll, I would be considered Pro-Life. I am sure there are many others out there who are like me as well.
The statement had nothing to do with the legality of abortion: "Abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter." I am assuming you either agreed or disagreed.
A more proper way to pose the question would be to ask people if abortion should be outlawed, because that is the crux of the whole debate. I don't want it outlawed, so that would make me pro-choice when worded that way.
If you see the debate as just a simple issue of morality, you should be heartened by the Zogby results, but if you want to make abortion illegal, I don't see any evidence there that necessarily supports that view.
When it comes to polls, there's no reason to believe that they haven't been by conservatives, just as they have done to the other institutions. If you're willing to steal elections, why wouldn't you be willing to corrupt poll taking, which has an impact on elections?
Obviously, if 60% of the people believe in X, you can't report that only 20% do -- otherwise you'd lose your credibility (although if you look at the MSM, they don't seem to mind losing credibility). So maybe you shave it down to 49% -- that would be enough to erase any damage.
When it comes to polls, there's no reason to believe that they haven't been corrupted by conservatives, just as they have done to the other institutions.
You stated:
"Meanwhile, a criminal facing the death penalty has been found guilty of doing something really heinous that the state has found deserving of the penalty of death."
The one thing the people who are pro life and pro death penalty are forgetting is one of Christ's most basic teachings, Forgiveness. Their argument that their faith compels them to be anti-abortion should also cause them to forgive.
Shoes -
Your comments were well taken, and I understand your point. However, I have heard all of that before. Whether or not a person is innocent (an unborn fetus) or guilty (a person sentenced to death) is irrelevant in the whole scheme of things. Life is life, no matter what. Personally, I am pro-life. On the other hand, I don't want anyone telling people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. Therefore, if I were to cast a vote on the issue, I would cast it in favor of pro-choice. If you are going to be pro-life, you MUST be pro-life on all issues. This is where the meanings of pro-life and pro-choice are definitely muddled. They are misleading. No pro-choicer is PRO ABORTION. However, you cannot say that you are pro-life if you support the death penalty. Clear and simple.
Life is life, no matter how innocent or wretched it may be.
In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to worry about these issues. In the world we live in, we have a group of people on one side (pro-lifers) telling a group of people on the other side (women) that they cannot have control over their bodies. To me it would seem more appropriate to educate than to legislate. If you're pro-life, educate others on the alternatives to abortions instead of passing laws to force your agenda down every one else's throats.
CSL
Thought!
This Perkins fellow flusters me.
Perkins is lying. Glad Mathews is continuing his suck-up to the right wing...
They're not pro-life, they're anti-woman. Nowhere in the FRC mission statement will you find a call for the end to war, the death penalty, or the creation of universal health insurance, which are ALL pr0-life stances. All they want is to tell strangers what to do with their bodies. The same cretins often decry government interference in the affairs of corporations but see nothing wrong with meddling in the PRIVATE affairs of citizens, which is why most Americans do NOT identify with their hypocritical movement. They LOVE the fetus but HATE the child until it reaches that special age I like to call the Age of Fodder, when you're just PERFECT to be jammed down the mouth of the war machine grinder to protect and enable rich people's untaxed legacy wealth to go on forever.
Let's see if your intellectual honesty comes down on the pro-choice side as well.
Pro-choice for abortion, but not for school vouchers, or letting people opt out of Social Security in favor of their own private retirement accounts?
Do you need more?
Try telling the good folks how the GOP is pro-anything, except rich people? Especially this current regime. As a right-winger, you have no "credibility" on this issue (as you like to say).
Tommy actually has a point here, if I read him correctly. "Pro-choice" and "pro-life" are nothing more than verbal shorthand to describe the two sides of the abortion issue. "Pro-choicers" are not in favor of the abstract concept of choosing between options; they are in favor of keeping abortion legal. Likewise, "pro-lifers" are not actually in favor of "life" under any circumstances; they are only in favor of criminalizing abortions. This is like the suicide/homicide bomber thing - the terms are not perfectly descriptive, but they are useful because we all know what they mean.
It was the 'intellectual honesty' quip that got me.
I only responded to Fantagor's assertion regarding pro-life and if you carry that position to other issues, then if you are intellectually honest you must do the same with pro-choice.
You can't do it with one "label" and not the other.
He must be a Hannity listener, other Hannity quips that I just love to laugh at--"intellectual fortitude, strenght of fortitude, courage of convictions." Hahaha He's got a million of 'em.
He must be a Hannity listener, other Hannity quips that I just love to laugh at--"intellectual fortitude, strenght of fortitude, courage of convictions." Hahaha He's got a million of 'em.
*******************
Don't argue the points discussed, just take a personal jab......obviously you do consider the above traits just "quips".
Funny, if a conservative posted what you did they would be labeled a troll. Curious?
I'm the AntiTroll. The new sheriff hired by MMFA to clean up this town.
I respectfully hate to critique you here, but Tommy isn't a troll. He disagrees often and goes off-topic just like the rest of us, but he is definitely capable of an intelligent discussion and even apologizing when he knows he is wrong, unlike the real trolls (left and right) that are frequently on the prowl here.
If you show Tommy some respect, you will usually find it returned (also untroll-like behavior, IMO). Tommy and I frequently get into heated debates, but I realize he just disagrees with me. We don't all have to think alike here. In fact, it is better that we don't, IMO.
You can take or leave my 2-cents, but I hate to see you labor under a false impression of Tommy.
For the record, Tommy and I have been (mostly) respectfully disagreeing for months now.
We do often disagree but I respect you for your opinions and the way you engage in debate.
And people keep saying that I am posting under another name and thanks for trying to clear that up as well.......everyone here should look to you and a few others (Rusty, solon, among others) for the standard on how to disagree without name calling.
Though I agree with tommy on almost no issue I can think of, he is NOT a troll.
But.... he did hold up a pretty incongruous argument about the "pro-choice" label, citing liberal opposition to social security "reform" and school vouchers.
Allowing public "choice" in terms of opting out of SS or using school vouchers would decidedly do HARM to the system and other citizens which can be, in practice, verified and quantified. School voucher programs are a *good* idea, except for the fact that it gives the government an excuse to de-fund public schools that are failing. This helps no one but the parents and students that have the means to jump ship and go to private school. SS debate is equally sticky - people opt-out, there is less to draw from the well - what if there was another crisis or world war or depression and SS was all there was for 15-20% of the country? Privatization is not the answer and I think most of America learned that during the 60-day tour last year.
However, with abortion, the "pro-choice" stance is really the only honest, American solution. You are free to choose, for yourself as a woman, whether or not to continue a pregnancy or terminate. If you think it's wrong, then you should have the child - but you CANNOT tell someone else that they must do the same. There is absolutely no justification for anyone to require someone else to BREED if they don't want to. That is the woman's decision (hopefully along with a healthy and stable spouse).
Nature has its own abortion you know. two-thirds of fertilized eggs never attach to the uterus - sometimes for no obvious reason, sometimes for a number of biological factors. If nature/biology selects some embryos to gestate and some to not, why can't a woman make that decision with her own mind and conscience as well?
Tommy isn't a troll. He's just horrible at argument and discussion. I feel sorry for the guy most of the time because he puffs his chest up behind arguments that are so full of holes and incongruities, the simplest intellect can destroy them. He also has an annoying habit of trying to pretend everything negative that comes down the pike about conservatives is equally true about liberals. It the fallacy of falce equivelency and he tries it at every turn.
Interesting how your list includes, after abortion, ONLY school vouchers (veiled privatization of education) and opting out of SS (flagrant privatization of SS). Sure, why not, so long as you add:
1. Choice of drugs to use (alcohol, tobacco, pot, LSD, etc.) 2. Choice where to obtain medications (Canada) 3. Choice not to pay federal taxes that go towards wars you don't support. 4. Choice of which version of the pledge of allegiance to recite (with or without God). 5. Choice to not fight in an illegal war (like Iraq). 6. Choice to tell the government to stop listening to your phone calls, reading your e-mails. 7. Choice to keep your pension funds rather than have corporations raid them or reduce your benefits.
Those are just a few I thought up. See, Tommy, choice goes beyond the limits of your limited Republican imagination.
I have no interest in what the Republican imagination is or isn't. For the record, I am for the legalization of drugs, the choice where to buy prescription drugs, lowering of all taxes for everybody, not raising them on so called "rich" people, freedom to say the pledge any way one sees fit, freedom not to join the military if one chooses not to, nobody in government has any interest in reading my emails or listening to my phone calls, and I suspect they don't for you either, and the pensions agreed upon between me and my employer should be paid to me.
Satisfied?
I'm an employer, business owner, dad, and grandfather. I don't like to pay taxes, but they are necessary. My children and employees, who make much less than I, should NOT have to shoulder the tax burden. I make much more money than they, there fore, I have no problem paying a greater percentage to keep this country running and secure. After all, I have much more to lose than they. It galls me when repubs say that someone who makes 20 to 30-k a year should try paying the % they do, then complain that they paid 300-k of their 750-k salary in taxes. How insulting.
I make much more money than they, there fore, I have no problem paying a greater percentage to keep this country running and secure.
*************************
Then you should feel very happy;
* The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes. * The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.
As long as you're quoting statistics, would you mind telling us how much money those percentiles make every year? It will help me feel more sorry for how unfairly they are treated.
I didn't say they were treated unfairly. I merely pointed out the myth floating around liberal circles that the rich don't pay any taxes.
But how much more of their income do you want to take from the "greedy rich"?
The myths are; "I earned this million, All it takes is hard work and determination, Anyone can do it," Meanwhile, the same people will tell you that poor people and minorities are lazy. And the biggest myth of all--"We all have an equal shot!"
I don't say minorities and poor people are lazy - I say lazy people are lazy. But there are paths that people can follow that will allow them opportunity.....
1) Stay in school.
2) Work hard.
3) Avoid moral mistakes.
4) Don't blame other's for your misfortune or your mistakes.
People who do these things, regardless of their race or gender, have a much better chance at success than those who do not.
But you will most likely see how many people here will slam me and call a racist or some other insulting name, just because I stated the above. What should be a no brainer for everyone to agree on is often met here with all sorts of slurs. Go figure.
* The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes. * The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes. *****The top 5 % make 50% of the money, the next 15% make 65% of the money.---It seems to me that this is skewed badly for the lower incom. And, I'm certain that any one of them would change places. * * * * * Just a short side note, there was a pole taken a few years ago, and 80% of the respondants thought they were in the top 10% income bracket.
25 % (not 85) thought they were in the top 10 %
I don't dispute your statistics, we just have a fundamental disagreement on this issue, which is fine.
I happen to believe the government has plenty of money to provide the necessary services they are mandated to do........to give them more only feeds their addiction and we get nothing but ineptitude and bureacracy as a result. I believe that we know better how to invest and spend our own money than they do. Taxes are necessary, obviously - but to fund and re-fund and fund some more programs that don't work, and have never worked is a waste. Let them live within their means, watch our money as if it was their own.
You're partially correct, however, every dollar spent by our government can not possibly be wasted. After all, it went back into the economy and provided profits which trickled down and led to wages etc, etc, etc. But, this can only be true if you believe in conservative economic values. The facts are--The 8 years from 92 to 2000 were economically the best in the history of this country, yet Bush decided to come in and fix it. Now look at what we've got. Income redistribution is a good thing for everyone, including the "rich," and those years proved it. The dirty little secret is that if everyone prospers, who will join the military?
I never said that every dollar spent by the government is wasted, I said plenty of it is. You cannot deny that, even in the defense of this country much is wasted, I don't deny that.
But I could not disagree more about income redistribution. It is patently immoral, in my opinion, to take income from someone who earns it and give it to someone who hasn't. That's Socialism, or Communism, or whatever. Not only does it punish success, (who is going to work hard knowing their fruits of their labor will be taken away) but it encourages laziness and corruption.
No thanks.
What is more immoral, redis, or to make far more than what will ever be needed while others have nothing?
Iguess we're getting off topic here (oh well)
All this intelligence, POOF, gone in one felt off topic deletion.....oh well, gotta run Guys.
Have a good night!
"Taxes are necessary, obviously - but to fund and re-fund and fund some more programs that don't work, and have never worked is a waste. Let them live within their means, watch our money as if it was their own." --Tommy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree. This is the main issue that I believe most Democrats don't get. While there is a definite need for taxation, many Americans (non-partisans as well as Republicans) feel the money goes to failed programs. I agree.
Too many people ignore the issue of dependency in this whole thing. Conservatives have a valid point that many social welfare programs have made a change from a safety net to a form of Big Brotherish paternalism. The government should view people in need as an investment and not just another dependent. Government welfare agencies should resist the natural tendency to increase in size, but should have the goal to put themselves out of business through their own success.
Now how do we do this?
Every statistic I have read says the average stay on Welfare is 18 months and that dependency for the most part happens only in pockets areas that have lost a major industry like the appalatians. Half of all welfare users leave within a year
[link to www.onlineopinion.com.au] For example, the extent of welfare dependence is almost always overstated – in the US solid empirical research discovered long-term welfare use was minimal, families spawning generations on welfare were rare and the average stay on the rolls was only 18 months. Welfare dependence is usually confined to small communities with unique needs (eg a town with the main industry destroyed, certain Indigenous communities). Successful solutions need to be community-based rather than across the board. For example, some schemes devised and performed by Indigenous groups have been very successful. Highlight the success stories and promote the ‘small is beautiful’ approach. Fast facts on poverty and welfare  The U.S. child poverty rate is more than double that of any other industrialized country. (UNICEF, 1993)  63.2 percent of poor families with children had someone in the family who worked during the year. (U.S. House of Representatives' Green Book, 1993 and 1994)  Approximately 27 percent of poor families with children had the equivalent of one or more persons working full time, year-round. (U.S. House of Representatives' Green Book, 1993 and 1994)  Families with children experienced most of the increase in U.S. poverty between 1990 and 1991. In 1990, the majority of these poor families—60 percent—were married-couple families. (U.S. House of Representatives' Green Book, 1993 and 1994)  More Americans are living below the poverty level--36.9 million—than at any time since 1962. (U.S. Census Bureau, 1993)  Of all WIC participants, 44.7 percent are Caucasian, 27.3 percent are African American, and 23.7 percent are Hispanic, (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1993)  Prenatal WIC benefits costing $296 million in 1990 will save $1.04 billion in health- and education-related expenditures by the year 2008. (General Accounting Office, 1992)  Due to a lack of funding, WIC reaches only 60 percent of all eligible women and children. Nearly 3.5 million people who qualify cannot be served. (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1993)  A record 27.4 million Americans—nearly 11 percent of the population—enrolled in the Food Stamp Program in November 1993. (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1994) _____________________________________________
Your information is appreciated and I thank you for setting me straight.
I now realize that I was just repeating the same things I have heard from my many conservative friends. The big problem here is that this view is pervasive in the Red State areas where I have lived my entire life. I don't know if it is possible to correct these apparently common misconceptions.
The Welfare Reform that Clinton signed changed a lot of those numbers that Solon posted from 1993. That is some dated material.
It would be interesting to see what percentage of the total yearly income of the US, makes up the top 5% and or the top 1%.
CEO's (who compose a huge chunk of that 1% and 5% I would assume) often make hundreds of times more than their average employee. It is logical that they would pay much more in taxes than 100's of their employees.
The CEO of the company I consult for is making $28 million (just from stock) when the sale of the company is final. I have a hard time feeling sorry for him if he only walks away with $10 million or so of that. Are you saying I should have some sympathy for him? Is that really unfair that he gets $10 million while 15,000 people lose their jobs, many without any severance?
The reason people with most of the money pay more taxes is because they have most of the money. I don't think that is a hard concept to grasp. Besides, I believe that to whom much is given, much is expected. Maybe you aren't a Christian, so I will forgive you if you don't believe in that.
Thank you for that, rickster. Taxes are an important responsibility and the system is so unfair right now. Someone making 30k/year really really really needs that $5,000 they pay to the gov. I'd like to see George W. live on $25,000 a year. I'm sure he spent that much on George Herbert's credit card in one semester in his Ivy days (not even adjusted for inflation).
oh and p.s. RE: CEO compensation.
20 years ago, CEOs' average earnings were 40 times more than the lowest paid worker in their company.
Today, CEOs are making 500 times more money than the "mythical little guy."
So he says:
"Let's see if your intellectual honesty comes down on the pro-choice side as well. Pro-choice for abortion, but not for school vouchers, or letting people opt out of Social Security in favor of their own private retirement accounts? Do you need more?"
This is so beyond an intellectually honest argument, how can anyone say that Tommy isn't a troll??? Well, if he isn't, he certainly plays one on TV.
The point stands -- the pro-choice people are for CHOICE. They don't want enforced abortions, they want women to have the CHOICE.
"PRO-LIFE" does not describe the people of the ANTI-CHOICE MOVEMENT. The may or may not be pro-life, but they are certainly anti-choice. THIS NOMENCLATURE IS JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE RIGHT-WING TILT OF THE MSM.
Trolls: Put out stupid arguments to try and elicit a reaction
Tommy: Puts out stupid arguments because that's the best he's actually capable of.
There's a difference.
Is this the way you always argue, Tommy? I hope not - I have been reading this site for a while, but not keeping up with the postings by people very much, so I am unfamiliar with your style, but I sure hope that this was simply an aberration.
Social Security is an insurance program that has a mandatory contribution for a guaranteed stipend.
Pro-choice is the ability for human beings who live in America to make personal medical decisions about their own bodies. Analogies only work if they fit. Yours did not. Parents have the right to send their kids to public or private schools, and I doubt you will find 10 people in America who would object to private school existence. And on the same tack, individuals can make contributions to other savings and investment programs while still making required contributions to Social Security. People who make contributions to Social Security today benefit those in need today! It is a way for the government to help those that might need aid in financing their monetary needs after retirement. It's a tax that provides insurance. It's not a voluntary program.
Abortion is voluntary. Are you suggesting that abortion should not be voluntary? That the government should control it? That not only should the government be able to disallow some abortions, but should be able to force other abortions?
That's the only way your analogy would work.
It does not work.
Another thread about abortion, something we can all agree on...
Perkins misspoke with regard to her statistics, clearly the majority of Americans are pro-choice at this time. However, that darn science that the left is so fond of is slowly eroding the pro-choice position now that medical advancements have made it possible to view the development of the fetus month by month. Don't look now, the pro-life sentiment is gaining ground.
Perkins is a he. My bad.
Bruce,
I can only accept getting something totally wrong as 'Misspeaking' if it's only one or two words that need to be replaced, and if the speaker's intent was different than what they said. That is clearly not the case here. Perkins meant what he said,(unless you think he missed saying the word 'not', which I don't), he believes that a majority of Americans consider themselves pro-life. Now, he may just have not done any research to support that position, which gives him plausible deniability to say he wasn't lying (Which seems to be a very popular right winger tactic "I wasn't lying, I just didn't know because I didn't do any research, so it's not as bad. Duh!"), but it doesn't make him any less wrong, it just makes him an idiot.
Maybe he's employing those new Faith-based statisitics I've heard about. (It's right because it FEELS right!) So he didn't mispeak, he may not have lied, but he spoke out of ignorance, which is almost as bad.
Now, as to science and abortion, it's about the viability for me, and for a lot of pro-choice people. Being able to see a fetus doesn't change my mind, (and I doubt you know how many minds it actually changes)but science has made it possible for babies to be born at 24-25 weeks, wheras a generation ago it was closer to 28 weeks was the earliest a fetus could be viable. And that's a good thing. Right wingers like to call all fetuses 'unborn babies'. Well, they're not. Unborn babies can survive outside the womb if need be. Fetuses cannot. You call it a baby, I've got the test: Deliver it. If it survives, hey it's a baby, keep it or go find an adoptive family who wants it. If it dies, it was a fetus, and wasn't ready to be born. Sorry.
Bill Hicks used to say, "You're not a person until you're in my phone book." I give a little more leeway. You're not a person until you don't have to be hooked up to your mother in order to live.
As to
Your position is reasonable. I think mine is as well. We define death as such time when the heart stops beating. We should define life as such time as the heart starts beating, approximately 17 days.
You know, there are thousands and thousands of people out there who cannot survive without being hooked up to machines. Ventilators, dialysis, you name it. Sometimes it is temporary until the body recovers, sometimes it is permanent. The mother is a human machine, keeping the baby alive and growing until it can survive on its own.
Surprisingly, there is no universally agreed-upon definition of death. Good discussion here: [link to www.puaf.umd.edu]
Death is defined when the brain ceases all functioning, since the human body is basically a support system to keep IT going, and simultaneously it controls all bodily functions. The heart stopping beating just usually coincides with the brain dying.
Ah...what the Republicans are counting on. How else will they stay in power?
Yes, there are people hooked up to machines that show no brain activity, but I don't believe the death certificate is written until they are disconnected from that machine and their heart stops.
New to commenting here, but have been lurking for a long time, on and off.
You made a comment about life starting when the heart begins to beat.
Human life is inside anything that has DNA and can replicate itself. The fetus is human life from the beginning.
The issue is not when it becomes life.
The issue is when it becomes viable.
The definition of viable is when a fetus can survive outside the womb, even if it needs help maintaining its breathing and heartbeat. If it cannot maintain respiration and blood circulation outside of the woman's womb, then it is not viable.
There's a difference between an alive person being kept alive by machines and a non-viable fetus having to stay inside the womb in order to stay alive.
One has been born already, and one has not. Artificial life support for a non-viable fetus has not yet been created. We do not have artificial uteri that can keep non-viable fetuses alive. We have many medical technologies available that can keep born people alive.
Babies that cannot be kept alive without staying inside a woman's womb are not viable. They are human life from the time that they are a clump of cells, but they aren't viable until they can survive outside of a womb.
You described the issue well. The question remains, since you agree that it is human life prior to it being viable, why is it okay to terminate it?
For you, viability is the proper line.
For others, life is the proper line.
If it were cut and dried, the poll numbers wouldn't be what they are.
The reason I said "misspoke" with regard to Perkins comment is that he should have said a majority of Americans are in favor of more restrictions on abortion, but not a total ban at this time.
That would make them pro-choice, whereas pro-lifers want there to be no abortions, pro-choice people wnat the mother to retain the choice of whether to continue or terminate the pregnancy. If you want there to be a choice, you are pro-choice, regardless of how many restrictions you think there should be, or there are (laws restricting third trimester abortions, except in the case where the mother's health is in jeopardy are reasonable, for example). I don't know of anyone who identifies themselves as pro-life who thinks women should be able to decide when to terminate pregnancy with lots of restrictions placed on the circumstances.
I think Perkins really believes that the majority of Americans are pro-life, that there should be no abortions, that abortion should be illegal. Unless you can show me evidence where he says something contrary to that stance, because he has no evidence to back up his assertion.
I have no idea what Perkins thinks, I was only posting what a majority of Americans think.
Would it be responsible to go about trying to convince others that it was true?
It's called taking responsibility for your convictions.
........ Against Abortion? Don't have one..........
I don't believe anyone is FOR abortion. The point is allowing women to choose what they want to do with their own bodies. As opposed to the rightwing wanting to control a personal matter.
The Republican party won't ever overturn Roe vs. Wade. They need this as much as anyone else. It's a political button that the Republicans need to get voters out and fired up to continue to vote for the party.
........ along with Gay Marriage and Intelligent Design.....
Isn't he that "Christian" idiot who bought the membership list from David Duke?
(Does Google search...)
Yup, he is. A racist jackass blathering about the "pro-life" numbers.
Four years ago, Perkins addressed the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), America's premier white supremacist organization, the successor to the White Citizens Councils, which battled integration in the South. In 1996 Perkins paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,500 for his mailing list. At the time, Perkins was the campaign manager for a right-wing Republican candidate for the US Senate in Louisiana. The Federal Election Commission fined the campaign Perkins ran $3,000 for attempting to hide the money paid to Duke.
[link to www.thenation.com]
...makes him totally qualified to be on the MSM as an expert. He's their kinda boy.
The polling data cited by mmfa makes great fodder for the debate but the underlying issues make this more complicated than trying to pigeon-hole people into pro-life or pro-choice categories.
There are a number of people on the extreme ends of this debate...some support all abortions and some support no abortions. It's my opinion that those of us in the great unwashed masses fall somewhere in between. Those that favor abortion cite "right to privacy" as the issue. That will prove to be the real constitutional test.
If you move past cherry picking only the polling results that suit your cause you will find that many people support more restrictions on abortion rather than the either/or decision. The current makeup of the SC probably doesn't have the inclination to overturn Roe as a federal law but they will probably tilt more towards state's rights to limit abortion.
In the words of Hillary Clinton...abortion should be safe, legal, and rare...and I think that is where most people line up. Abortion as a convenience to terminate an unwanted pregnancy under the "right to privacy" is a poor law. The state courts will move to place more restrictions on that situation and the SC may very well uphold those laws.
That is why it is important to win elections
About the comment about taking money from those who have it to give it to those who don't being wrong... isn't that kind of what Christianity is supposed to be about, just on a bit more voluntary basis? But we have seen how well the charity idea works, especially when repubs are in charge... the HELL with people, we want our goddamned money! And it IS about money and nothing else, with these people. The power is just a way to get more money.
I am constantly amazed at the anger and hatred that the right has for the 'public'. Look at their actions, everything is about taking away from the public and giving it to themselves. No more public lands, no more public education, no more public safety net. It's all about the public, and they HATE the public.
Now, to get on topic, regradless of what he says, the majority of the American people are really for the government doing something IF it's the right thing to do, and against it if it's screwing people up. That is why the majority of the American people are NOT happy with the way things are going now. They are smart enough to see that the way things are going now is NOT good for the majority of us, and want that changed.
The anti-choice side is about stopping women from making their own choices, plain and simple. Ever notice how the majority of who you see picketing abortion clinics are MEN? The vast majority of the anti choice movement seems to be the sex that will never have to worry about an abortion, and who, in large proportion, will NOT accept responsibility for the children they sire as it is. Trying to get child support from deadbeat dads is a HUGE problem in this country, and with the repubs refusing to pass ANY laws that change THAT, they just prove their hypocrisy every time they open their mouths.
Until men are actually willing to step up to the plate and accept responsibility for their offspring, we have NO business in forcing women to bear and raise those children (and let's face it, it's almost ALWAYS the woman who does the raising, with exceptions).
Not to mention, where are these people when it comes to actually taking care of the kids? I don't see these groups clamoring for health care for children, or better living conditions or even better educations. They don't give a tinker's damn once you're born, then you are someone ELSE'S responsibility. WHY are you THEIR responsibility BEFORE you're born, if you aren't afterwards? These people's hypocrisy knows NO bounds.
- The anti-choice side is about stopping women from making their own choices...Until men are actually willing to step up to the plate and accept responsibility for their offspring - willmorrison
Lets level the playing field on this debate because it is not only about women.
This is an interesting take on a volatile argument. Women have a right to privacy and men have a right to equal protection...somewhere in this morass should be a concern for the unborn...and the real issue of responsiblity by both men and women as a consequence of their actions.I'm sorry but men should have no choice once a child has been born. Men do have equal protection under the law. They can sleep with a women and possibly create a child. Their choices end at that point because once conception occurs, the only person at risk is the mother.
As far as being responsible goes you must remember every pregnancy does not start with consenting adults. Rapes and incest still occur. These women already have problems. They should not have to try to figure out if the government will once again force them to do something with their body they do not want.
- men should have no choice once a child has been born - hman
So it's ok for a mother to put the child up for adoption and avoid all responsibility but a father has no choice?
- once conception occurs, the only person at risk is the mother. - hman
Certainly the only one of the two that has a health risk is the mother. But, in consensual sex they made a decision together. If that decision brought about an unwanted pregnancy then both should be responsible. It is not reasonable to assume that only the woman can avoid responsiblity because she will have to go through pregnancy...after all they both knew the potential consequences.
- Rapes and incest still occur. - hman
That's a cliched argument that doesn't wash when debating abortion. Only a small percentage on the far right would outlaw all abortions. I believe that most Americans feel that an exception should be made for cases of rape and incest.
- the government will once again force them to do something with their body they do not want - hman
I know that you are speaking about the case of rape/incest. However, this goes to the heart of the debate. Should a woman have the right to avoid the responsiblity of childbirth for convenience? If she has the right...then why not the father?
Arguing that a woman has the constitutional right to an abourtion under the right of privacy...then the equal protection clause of the constitution is worth looking into in the father's case.
Pregnancy is not caused by a bolt of lighting. Two people willingly assumed the responsibility and risk equally...the law should be consistent for both male and female. The last resort should be abortion.
Tony perkins looks like he'd hold one in his mouth till it went soft,the same for Hannity!
I really don't want any one who isn't involved in the pregnancy.....geriatric old farts, people who don't even know the people involved, POLITICIANS, even grandparents, to make a decision on how long a woman must carry a fetus. When the egg gets fertilized does NOT a baby make!!!!!!!!! God makes the decision in many cases on if the fetus will make it to being a bonified baby. The MOTHER should also have a right in the decision. There are plenty of means of birth control......getting it and practicing it should be a priority.....but when the bogus christian advocates against BC make a woman have to make that decision by witholding her chosen means.....who are we to tell her NO! There has been at least one case of this. When men become capable of and make it a practice of carrying the FETUS to term.....then I will say they can have a say in the decision. Female and capable of ovulating shouldn't a mother make!!!!!!!!!!!!!!