Americans Choose "Pro-Choice" for First Time in Seven Years

[pbrauer]

Indeed the tide has turned around.

Americans Choose "Pro-Choice" for First Time in Seven Years

PRINCETON, N.J. -- Half of Americans consider themselves "pro-choice" on abortion, surpassing the 44% who identify as "pro-life." This is the first time since 2008 that the pro-choice position has had a statistically significant lead in Americans' abortion views.

​

 

[countryboy]

The tide is turning to what, pure evil? I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you would celebrate that.

 

[prometeus]

The tide is turning to what, pure evil?

Yes, for you and your ilk, freedom and self determination are seen as evil.

 

[countryboy]

Yes, for you and your ilk, freedom and self determination are seen as evil.

Not at all, we champion those causes. The slaughtering of innocents is what I am referring to as evil. If that is not evil, nothing is.

 

[ARTHUR 1976]

Awesome news!!!

Gee I always wondered why the Repugs hate BIG GOVERNMENT , but feel the need to tell a Woman what she can and can't do with own body???

What happened to freedom??

Let's just hope the Repugs put Santorum, or Walker on the ballot in 16, I'm guessing that won't go over too well, especially when your opposition is a Woman..

 

[clownboy]

Should read, "NOT the first time since 2008 pollsters have figured out how to frame the question to get precisely the result they are looking for".

 

[AGENT J]

No surprise really . . . .
The vast majority of people I know are for some sort of choice even those that self identify as pro-life


whats funny is many pro-lifers would be labeled pro-choicers here but the handful or so of insane dishonest pro-life extremist punching bags that post here lol

Heck it's already happened . . .the NORMAL and honest pro-lifers have posted here and been called pro-choicers or told they arent REALLY pro-lifers by the "nutters", this is why they dont post often they dont want associated with them.

ANyway back on topic most people are for some sort of choice and not straight bannings or mostly bannings or they are PERSONALLY pro-choice and understand its non of thier business what others do in this regard up to a point. They respect the rights of others and or understand somethign in the middle is the solution.

 

[nota bene]

Should read, "NOT the first time since 2008 pollsters have figured out how to frame the question to get precisely the result they are looking for".

I've just looked at the linked Gallup poll and am curious to what you object. Which question framed which way?

 

[earthworm]

Not at all, we champion those causes. The slaughtering of innocents is what I am referring to as evil. If that is not evil, nothing is.

Conservatives DO have a point here .. as far as it goes .. What they conveniently forget is "man's basic disrespect " for woman .

 

[Reformedfindlay]

No surprise really . . . .
The vast majority of people I know are for some sort of choice even those that self identify as pro-life


whats funny is many pro-lifers would be labeled pro-choicers here but the handful or so of insane dishonest pro-life extremist punching bags that post here lol

Heck it's already happened . . .the NORMAL and honest pro-lifers have posted here and been called pro-choicers or told they arent REALLY pro-lifers by the "nutters", this is why they dont post often they dont want associated with them.

ANyway back on topic most people are for some sort of choice and not straight bannings or mostly bannings or they are PERSONALLY pro-choice and understand its non of thier business what others do in this regard up to a point. They respect the rights of others and or understand somethign in the middle is the solution.

A common one I see is "personal pro life" but "political pro choice" which is definitely respectable.

 

[Thrilla]

I've just looked at the linked Gallup poll and am curious to what you object. Which question framed which way?

well, imo, it's framed with 2 sides in mind, utterly ignoring nuanced middle positions......

but whatever.... people have to beat their chests over something...it might as well be abortion.

 

[AGENT J]

A common one I see is "personal pro life" but "political pro choice" which is definitely respectable.

agreed, Yes that is a very common stance and it deserves the utmost respect because of how logical and respectful of rights it is.

 

[AGENT J]

well, imo, it's framed with 2 sides in mind, utterly ignoring nuanced middle positions......

but whatever.... people have to beat their chests over something...it might as well be abortion.

Im confused, two sides? why do you think that? what are you saying?
Am I mistaken (which i definitely could be) . . . weren't 4 options given and the person self identified if they are pro-choice or pro-life?

isnt that what this chart says?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Indeed the tide has turned around.

Americans Choose "Pro-Choice" for First Time in Seven Years

PRINCETON, N.J. -- Half of Americans consider themselves "pro-choice" on abortion, surpassing the 44% who identify as "pro-life." This is the first time since 2008 that the pro-choice position has had a statistically significant lead in Americans' abortion views.

​

Look at that graph - the gap was wide, but it began narrowing after the GOP took Congress in the latter half of the '90's. Then there's a sharp narrowing after 9/11, but then it widens a bit until Obama took office.

In other words, I'd say the numbers that graph is based on might be determined at least to some extent by the degree of influence wielded by the far-right side of the GOP. Just sayin'.

 

[HonestJoe]

Im confused, two sides? why do you think that? what are you saying?
Am I mistaken (which i definitely could be) . . . weren't 4 options given and the person self identified if they are pro-choice or pro-life?

The ask multiple questions (they're actually seem to be extracts from wider surveys). The tabloid hacks then choose which results to report, with their own often questionable adjustments and interpretations.

Personally I think it's depressing so many people buy in to the meaningless political terms pro-life and pro-choice. The opinions on what the law should actually be are much more relevant, though some of the detailed results suggest many respondents are very confused, giving inconsistent answers to specific follow-up questions.

 

[Thrilla]

Im confused, two sides? why do you think that? what are you saying?
Am I mistaken (which i definitely could be) . . . weren't 4 options given and the person self identified if they are pro-choice or pro-life?

isnt that what this chart says?
View attachment 67184990

the two sides are pro-life and pro-choice... those are the only option you can give in the question.

what if I'm both?... which side do i choose?.... what do I call myself for the purpose of the poll?

 

[CanadaJohn]

Indeed the tide has turned around.

Americans Choose "Pro-Choice" for First Time in Seven Years

PRINCETON, N.J. -- Half of Americans consider themselves "pro-choice" on abortion, surpassing the 44% who identify as "pro-life." This is the first time since 2008 that the pro-choice position has had a statistically significant lead in Americans' abortion views.

​

This really is kind of comical. If you look at the chart, dating back to 1999 when the actual tide started to change away from support for abortion, the polling has basically stayed within the margin of error - 3 points up or down for each view. In effect, America simply remains an extremely divided country on yet another significant matter.

 

[Thrilla]

Look at that graph - the gap was wide, but it began narrowing after the GOP took Congress in the latter half of the '90's. Then there's a sharp narrowing after 9/11, but then it widens a bit until Obama took office.

In other words, I'd say the numbers that graph is based on might be determined at least to some extent by the degree of influence wielded by the far-right side of the GOP. Just sayin'.

it's very interesting how you equated a narrowing of the numbers with Congress(GOP) in the 90's... but a widening of the numbers with the President (Dem)

had you stuck to congressional influence or congressional influence throughout the time frames... your " far right wing GOP influence" analysis would have failed.....


which is exactly why you made the switch.


predetermined conclusions have a funny way of having the evidence manipulated to "prove" them.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)The ask multiple questions
2.)(they're actually seem to be extracts from wider surveys).
3.) The tabloid hacks then choose which results to report, with their own often questionable adjustments and interpretations.
4.)Personally I think it's depressing so many people buy in to the meaningless political terms pro-life and pro-choice.
5.) The opinions on what the law should actually be are much more relevant
6.) though some of the detailed results suggest many respondents are very confused, giving inconsistent answers to specific follow-up questions.

1.) yes correct to make sure its not a black/white question
2.) why d you thin that?
3.) what tabloid hacks? . . i'm only talking about the OP and the Gallup poll . . . 50% do self identify as pro-choice (and many pro-lifers want choice available)
4.) This i agree with . . .in real life though I most do not buy into it but thats just a guess
5.) agree 100%!
6.) I missed that, can you provide an example?

 

[AGENT J]

1.)the two sides are pro-life and pro-choice... those are the only option you can give in the question.
2.) what if I'm both?...
3.) which side do i choose?....
4.) what do I call myself for the purpose of the poll?

1.) yes with 4 way to define those options. there were even 4% that self identified as pro-life but still think it should be legal for others in any circumstances
2.) see #1 lol
3.) im not really sure i understand, that is YOUR choice what you choose
4.) again your choice and why would it be based on the poll . . . .are you suggesting there should be a 3 title?
what would you call that third title . . then then wouldnt that negate the 4 questions lol

I mean do you KNOW people that pick a third choice? and when they do, do the additional questions not fit that third choice?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

it's very interesting how you equated a narrowing of the numbers with Congress(GOP) in the 90's... but a widening of the numbers with the President (Dem)

had you stuck to congressional influence or congressional influence throughout the time frames... your " far right wing GOP influence" analysis would have failed.....


which is exactly why you made the switch.


predetermined conclusions have a funny way of having the evidence manipulated to "prove" them.

No, I wasn't working with any 'predetermined conclusion'. The numbers seem clear to me - when the far right exerts more influence on the GOP (as they did during the Lewinsky drama, immediately after 9/11, and immediately after Obama was elected), the numbers get a lot closer. I don't know that this is an absolute fact, for just as smoke does not always mean that there's a fire, correlation is not causation...but the fact that there's smoke still means we should check it out to see if there's a fire or not...

...and the trends in the graph do seem to coincide with the degree of influence that the far right has on the GOP as a whole.

 

[Thrilla]

1.) yes with 4 way to define those options. there were even 4% that self identified as pro-life but still think it should be legal for others in any circumstances
2.) see #1 lol
3.) im not really sure i understand, that is YOUR choice what you choose
4.) again your choice and why would it be based on the poll . . . .are you suggesting there should be a 3 title?
what would you call that third title . . then then wouldn't that negate the 4 questions lol

I would choose to self identify as "other" or "both"..... an option that is not represented in the graph that, you know, this entire thread is based upon.

 

[Paschendale]

A common one I see is "personal pro life" but "political pro choice" which is definitely respectable.

Which is pro choice. It's just stating which choice you would make. There is no "personal pro life". There is just having the choice or not. Which one you choose has nothing to do with people having the choice.

 

[AGENT J]

I would choose to self identify as "other" or "both"..... an option that is not represented in the graph that, you know, this entire thread is based upon.

why would that be your choice?

and ill ask my other questions again
are you suggesting there should be a 3 title?
what would you call that third title . . then wouldn't that negate the 4 questions lol

what is YOUR stance and explain why it doesnt fit?

 

[Thrilla]

No, I wasn't working with any 'predetermined conclusion'. The numbers seem clear to me - when the far right exerts more influence on the GOP (as they did during the Lewinsky drama, immediately after 9/11, and immediately after Obama was elected), the numbers get a lot closer. I don't know that this is an absolute fact, for just as smoke does not always mean that there's a fire, correlation is not causation...but the fact that there's smoke still means we should check it out to see if there's a fire or not...

...and the trends in the graph do seem to coincide with the degree of influence that the far right has on the GOP as a whole.

sure , sure... it's just so happens that the numbers you want coincide with the political party you like ... and the numbers you don't like are matched with the political party you don't like.

we'll all pretend that you going back and forth between congressional influence and Presidential influence to make those numbers match never happened.
we'll pretend that Clinton had no influence on the numbers, while Obama does...we'll pretend the GOP congress under Clinton had more influence, but Obama has more influence now.

we'll do all sorts of pretending to make your predetermined conclusion magically come true...we're here for you bro... we got your back.