An AP Ipsos poll taken in the wake of the new legislation in South Dakota shows that “most think abortion should be legal”:
Filed under: In The News | Get Permalink or trackback |
I dont find this poll really reassuring.
43 % find that abortion should be illegal in most or all cases. This is very chilling, frankly. What happened to privacy rights in this country?
Old dogs can learn new tricks After all, look at me
I even posted on the infamous Westboro Baptist Church. Geez I hate those people!! I have posted on abortion and Gay rights. LOL who would have thought that two storms and many months later, that an admitted republican would write for the Dem Daily? So relax and know that we will get back control of our country and the house, and senate.
I think religious intolerance has set in, for one thing.
Only 19% favor the current “law of the land” as interpreted by a series of Supreme Court decisions, and favored by groups such as NOW and NARAL. The rest see that there is a life involved which needs to be given at least some respect.
At one time the Democratic Party was considered to be the party which defended the weak. How did this get turned around and it come to be the Party that completely denies the right to live and the human dignity of the unborn? This issue has caused many people who don’t like most Republican policies to leave the Democrats and hold their noses and vote Republican.
Could the Democratic Party become a Party consistent in holding to the rights and human dignity of all humans regardless of race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, class, appearance, religion, physical or mental condition, born or unborn? I hope so. Let’s avoid the choice between a Party that cares (or mostly just pretends to care) about people only before they’re born or at the end of their life, and a Party that cares for only the healthy born. Why not a Party that cares for all? Is this too radical for America?
Bill Samuel, Board member, Democrats for Life of Maryland
The AP Poll cited above shows a larger percentile of the population that believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
We’re all entitled to our beliefs, but religion should not enter into a woman’s right to privacy. That’s the crux of the argument.
Your position is appears to be based on your faith, as per your link.
If it was simply a matter of protecting the unborn this would be one thing. What Bill ignores is that there are also questions of a woman’s control of her own body.
Opposing choice isn’t simply a matter of defending the rights of the unborn. It means a return to the days of coat hanger abortions. It means an more intrusive government which imprisons doctors and/or women who seek abortions.
I’m sure there are some people who vote Republican who might otherwise vote Democratic due to abortion, but there are far more people who vote Republican due to thinking they can get away with voting for them, despite being pro-choice, as Row v. Wade keeps this from becoming a political issue.
Republicans know that if Row v. Wade was really overturned and abortion became an issue in every election they would become a minority party in most states outside of the south.
How about both parties supporting more access to contraception and making sex education more useful than ‘Just say no’?
My church has a class on sexuality for the 7th or 8th graders. It was very well developed, both teachers (male and female) had special training and the classes were ‘closed’
You have to start at the beginning of the year (first class is with the parents) and after that, only those kids are allowed in. No personal information shared, or even who asked what questions were to be talked about out side the class.
Both my kids took it in 8th grade. Both went on to high school and could not believe the level of ignorance and myth their peers operated on. At 25 and 21, both are still virgins.
That would cut a lot down. However, most abortions are for middle aged women who are married but had the OOPS pregnancy when they do not have a good situation to allow them to raise another child.
Recently, one women wrote about her experience in trying to get a morning after prescription. She was unable to get it in time and did become pregnant – which she and her husband could not commit to. Both are professionals and they have two children. Their lives are maxed now, adding another child would not help them, the child or their grade school children.
What is the problem with letting a woman have a choice in this kind of situation without getting upset about the rights of a bunch of cells that are a long ways from being a viable human being? Many of them are at an age when they are more likely to have complications and/or a child with a congenital birth defect. This adds to the time the parents have to spend with that child, taking even more away from their other children.
And please, adoption is far worse for some of us than abortion – as bad as that is.
There are plenty of children in this world who die daily from starvation and illness that could be prevented or treated easily. Seems like we could put more time and energy into helping them than interfering with a woman’s decision on her life and health.
I would take the anti-abortion side more seriously as being “pro-life” if they were more consistent, such as in opposing capital punishment and opposing torture.
I would also take them more seriously if they weren’t the ones who typically oppose actions which would help reduce abortions, such as making contraception more easily available and having real sex education rather than abstinence-only education (which leads to increased teen pregnancy).
This is aimed at the anti-choice movement and might not necessarily apply to Bill. Democrats for Life might not have the same set of contradictory beliefs as the typical opponents of choice.
I think most of the Democrats for life are also opposed to the death penalty.
Then there are the Bill Ritters, who are pro choice and pro death penalty. I will have to hold my nose and vote so Bob the rubberstamp Beauprez does not become my next govenor.
Ultimately, this comes down to a morality judgement.
If you had sex, you should have been prepared to become a parent. Otherwise, having sex is a sin for just the pleasure. Teaching sexuality, sex ed, etc. is giving out knowledge – another sin.
If you commit a heinous crime, we will get you on your way to God’s judgement and hell as soon as possible.
Torture? What difference does it make if they are heathens?