Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Abortion, PollsSurveyUSA recently did a poll about reproductive rights. The results are surprising. Only 15 states are pro-life, while the others are pro-choice.
Here are the states who have a majority who favor the pro-life movement:
Utah
life: 61% choice: 33%Louisiana
57% 36%Arkansas
55% 40%Idaho
55% 41%Alabama
54% 36%Mississippi
53% 39%W. Virginia
53% 39%Kentucky
51% 42%Tennessee
51% 42%Indiana
50% 47%South Dakota
49% 47%Missouri
48% 45%Oklahoma
48% 47%Nebraska
47% 49%
The one “neutral” state:
North Dakota
47% 47%
And now the pro-choice states:
Kansas
45% 50%North Carolina
44% 47%Pennsylvania
44% 51%Georgia
43% 52%South Carolina
43% 47%Texas
43% 52%Michigan
42% 55%Montana
42% 53%Ohio
42% 52%Iowa
41% 56%Arizona
39% 56%Minnesota
39% 56%New Mexico
39% 56%Virginia
39% 54%Wisconsin
39% 57%Wyoming
39% 57%Alaska
37% 58%Florida
36% 58%Hawaii
35% 57%Colorado
34% 61%Illinois
33% 58%Maine
33% 63%Oregon
33% 62%Nevada
32% 64%Rhode Island
32% 63%Washington
32% 63%Delaware
31% 63%New Jersey
31% 63%Maryland
29% 65%New Hampshire
29% 67%California
28% 65%Massachusetts
28% 68%New York
27% 66%Connecticut
26% 68%Vermont
25% 70%
Some of these numbers truly surprised me. Most notably, the “swing” state of Missouri favors pro-life while the staunchly Republican Kansas falls into the pro-choice camp. This is certainly significant to say the least, and I suppose it shows how certain issues divide people.
Personally, I think a woman should have the right to choose what she does with her body. If the government holds sway over those choices, I think the consequences would be disastorous. And I concede that abortion is an unfortunate solution, but ultimately necessary if men and women are truly going to have equal rights.
However, that stance doesn’t make these numbers any less interesting.
Consider them and decide for yourself.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 13th, 2005 and is filed under Abortion, Polls. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 13th, 2005 at 8:04 am
Abortion is one of the stranger issues in American politics today. It crosses partisan, ideological, and political cultural lines in a way that rarely fails to surprise observers willing to tackle it.
September 13th, 2005 at 8:08 am
It appears this is a poll of all adults. I wonder if a poll of likely voters (or rather, actual voters from 2004) would return different results. I would guess that some of the closer states would turn from pro-choice to pro-life, although you can never be sure.
If that were the case, and abortion was returned to the states as an issue, I bet that in the SECOND election after it was put to a vote, a lot of previously uninterested voters would show up at the polls!
September 13th, 2005 at 9:11 am
Certainly a woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body. The big question is, what if someone else’s body is involved? The “pro-choice” advocates evidently consider that an organism undergoes some sort of magical transformation in the birth canal, transmogrifying from a body part akin to an appendix into a human being with human rights. If it is inside the mother, go ahead and smash its skull with a scissors and suck out the brain. Fifiteen minutes later, do the same thing to the same organism and it is murder. I believe defining whether something is human and has human rights by its *location* is simply irrational, and a shameful blot on our system of laws.
September 13th, 2005 at 9:32 am
I concur with Mike’s gruesome analysis that radical pro-choicers must go through to justify ALL abortions — i.e. partial birth abortions. This in fact is the flaw in this survey — it makes no differentiation between trimesters or procedures or funding or availablity, ext. I suspect they’d have vastly different results if the question was: Do you support partial-birth abortions? Should the government fund abortions? Should parental consent be mandatory for girls 16 and younger? I also agree with IcePick — the political meaning of this survey rests on its methodology and I’m unimpressed. However, one thing is for certain, the pro-choice justices on the Supreme Court will use this type of survey to verify a “national consensus” — just like they did on Lawrence v. Texas — and I think that “national consensus” has been proven bogus. I trust no numbers in the Culture Wars.
September 13th, 2005 at 10:00 am
The differences between the opinions of the various states are part of why I think that abortion (along with just about every other medical procedure) should be a state issue, not a federal issue. I agree with DosPeros in that I don’t particularly trust numbers to have external meaning, but the relative difference can be instructive.
September 13th, 2005 at 10:51 am
I am pro-choice, and I believe that life begins at conception. I do not believe this (the time when there is actually a life in being) to really be the point of having an abortion in the first place. The reasons a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy are not related to the exact point at which a glob of cells turns into a person.
I used to be pro-life (I was raised Catholic and was shown all kinds of gruesome pictures of aborted fetuses during sex ed), but as I have become an adult, I do not believe that this issue is quite so black and white. I think people on both sides of this issue use certain terms and examples in order to inflame the emotions of people instead of looking at the reality and facts of the situation.
I would say that all this graphic talk about partial-birth and late-term abortions is just one such device. The facts show that these types of abortions are either disallowed or severely regulated in almost all states.
“As of February, 2005, 17 states had bans on post-viability abortions that abortion supporters say do not meet Supreme Court requirements: three states allow late-term abortions only when the mother’s life is in danger, four other states allow late-term abortions only when the mothers physical (but not mental) health is in jeopardy, and 13 states ban all abortions performed after a certain point in pregnancy. Nineteen (plus the District of Columbia) allow them when necessary to preserve the woman’s life, physical health, or mental health.
At least three states (Delaware, Minnesota, and Utah) have no current policy regarding post-viability abortions because the laws in those states are blocked by court order. Most or all of the remaining 47 states, plus the District of Columbia, impose some regulation on late-term abortion.”
- From http://www.answers.com/topic/partial-birth-abortion
I do think if people were asked about their preference on partial-birth abortions, the survey numbers would be different, but so what? And, DosPeros, all of the other survey questions you suggested are areas that are fairly regulated at present. The government will not pay for abortions, many states require parental consent, waiting periods, mandatory counseling, and sometimes spousal (or putative father) consent. The government has placed strict and sometimes ridiculous regulations on clinics that provide abortions, making it nearly impossible for a facility to meet all the standards because of funding and staffing issues. In addition, because of the political issues involved, many health care providers simply don’t want to be involved in providing abortion services. Pro-lifers and conservatives have changed their tactics over the past 30 years. Abortion may be technically legal, but it is now becoming practically impossible for many women to obtain one. True, many abortions are still occurring each year, but I believe that mostly women with means are able to get one. (Just like many other things in this country - the “haves” can have most anything, while the “have nots” cannot).
Lastly, let me point out two things about states having control of this issue: 1) If your state makes it illegal to have an abortion, all the women that want one will just go to a state where it is legal; and 2) if you let states decide on this issue, it won’t be long before they will have to be allowed to decide other things such as gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, legalization of assisted suicide, etc.
September 13th, 2005 at 11:12 am
I’m pro-choice and believe that abortion is taking a life. I believe it’s a woman’s choice whether or not she wants to have her baby. If she decides to abort, she’ll have to deal with all the trauma that goes along with it. It’s her decision and her grief and everyone else should just stay the hell out of it.
September 13th, 2005 at 11:24 am
Meredith wrote:
Here’s one conservative who is in favor of this. (Depending on the particulars, legalization of marijuana may fall under federal jurisdiction due to the Commerce Clause, I believe.) Outside of certain defined areas, it’s none of my business as a Floridian how California or Mass. or Alabama decide to run their affairs. If I don’t like some of the outcomes, tough. (Hell, I live in Florida and don’t get the outcomes I desire here!) I mean, what’s the point of federalism otherwise?
September 13th, 2005 at 1:07 pm
Why is it that an abortion is a woman’s “decision and her grief and everyone else should stay the hell out of it”, and if she wants to kill her 1-week-old, it’s not?
September 13th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
Paul -
IMHO - it’s because the baby could live on it’s own at one week.
September 13th, 2005 at 3:02 pm
You know that’s vague in all sorts of ways, right?
I could get into details here, but I’m sure you’ve seen the details too, and frankly, it’s a pain to enumerate it all for the umpteenth time, regardless of one’s position.
September 13th, 2005 at 4:22 pm
Paul -
Yes, I do know - but I have no desire to debate the entire pro-choice pro-life argument.
September 13th, 2005 at 4:30 pm
Just for the record, I really do not believe a one-week-old child could survive all by itself; it would die within a few days. What Monica is referring to is the “viability” argument, carried to an extreme: if the baby can survive without its mother, it is a person; otherwise, it has no rights at all. Personally, I can hardly wait until a viable artificial womb is developed (which researchers are working on) and fetuses can survive from a very early stage of development, which will expose a few flaws in that line of reasoning.
See, the whole question being begged here is: what constitutes a person, whose life is protected by our system of laws, and why? How does one *rationally* differentiate between a one-day-old baby and a minus-ond-day old baby?
Me, I think one potential answer might be when the organism has a beating heart (i.e., has its own circulatory system functioning) or detectable brain waves (its own nervous system), and is therefore not simply a subset of the mother. The trouble with these points, though, is they are far too early to satisfy pro-choice advocates.
I think a fetus *does* have a right to life, although that right must be balanced against the mother’s other rights. The earlier in its development it is, the weaker its rights are versus the mother’s, and vice versa.
But we cannot even examine these questions, due to our judiciary. It’s all well and good to cite theoretical abortion restrictions which are on the books, but none of them are enforced or enforceable due to litigation. None. All a mother needs to eliminate an unborn child, no matter how far along in development, is a doctor to attest the abortion is necessary for her health (which, or course, included *mental* health, meaning that having or caring for a baby could be traumatic for her), and the child has no rights. Zero.
Yes, I want Roe v. Wade overturned, because I think these are questions our society needs to face, rather than shoving them under the rug. The just and moral answer lies somewhere between “life begins at conception” and a magic conferral of personhood by passage through the birth canal, and while Roe remains unchallenged the dialogue will be dominated by the extremists.
September 13th, 2005 at 8:56 pm
What’s really fun in these culture issues is the $$ arguments. The government has made all sorts of programs, starting with Social Security but certainly not ending there, which assume that the population will keep growing. If it doesn’t the country collapses under the financial burden of these intergenerational ponzi schemes.
The government has a legitimate interest to regulate fertility to assure financing the New Deal. Pro-lifers should be big spending Democrats and pro-choicers should want a small government that doesn’t depend on >2.1 TFR to survive the long haul. Of course, the official party positions are exactly backwards.
September 13th, 2005 at 10:19 pm
[...] I find this sort of raw data just about endlessly fascinating. [...]
September 14th, 2005 at 9:35 am
Meredith writes: “I am pro-choice, and I believe that life begins at conception.” This is a very refreshing comment coming from a pro-choicer - to logically extrapolate on this statement - abortion is killing (or to use less charged language, “terminating”) life. I don’t think there are many shades of grey about this statement. Obviously, most pro-choice advocates deny the existence of any life at all, choosing to characterize the “glob” as a nascent life form undeserving of any moral contemplation, let alone legal protection. So I congratulate you, while you seem to be a moral relativist, you’re a biological absolutist. A tough position for any person let alone a Catholic.
You also write: “Abortion may be technically legal, but it is now becoming practically impossible for many women to obtain one. True, many abortions are still occurring each year, but I believe that mostly women with means are able to get one. (Just like many other things in this country - the “havesâ€Â? can have most anything, while the “have notsâ€Â? cannot).
Lastly, let me point out two things about states having control of this issue: 1) If your state makes it illegal to have an abortion, all the women that want one will just go to a state where it is legal…”
Ah, the New Orlean Argument — they’d have an abortion if they could just get out of town. There is nothing quit a ugly as classism mixed with the gore of abortion mills.
Cutting to the chase with the liberal agenda for the black community: THEY LOVE OUR VOTES, BUT THE DON’T LOVE OUR BABIES.
November 17th, 2005 at 12:07 pm
Monica
November 17th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
Monica
You are an idiot. The fact is that once the sperm meets the egg, a life is formed. Abortion is snuffing out that life. How you can come onto this site and say something but say you don’t want to debate the topic is beyond me. And how many one-week-old babies do you see living on their own? Babies require care and nurturing for YEARS before they can actually do things on their own! The fact of the matter is that abortion is murder no matter when it takes place, 1st trimester or 3rd trimester…
November 17th, 2005 at 12:43 pm
Lindsey- how many fetus’s do you see suckling their mothers breast? Viability has nothing to do with full independence from others. Viability refers to ability to live without being PHYSICALLY ATTACHED to the mother (in general terms). While I do not know Monica, I’m sure she is not an idiot, you however? I’m not so sure of.
February 21st, 2006 at 12:43 pm
I would just like to say that I used to be pro-choice. I had an abortion and nobody bothered to tell me that it was a decision I would regret for the rest of my life. I got pregnant again as a result of a rape and decided to let something good come of a horrible situation and choose adoption. This decision I have never regretted because I get pictures and letters from the family who adopted my baby. The mother was only 27 when she developed cervical cancer and lost her ability to bear children. They are so happy to have a child. I am their hero. PEople need to be more informed about the after effects of having an abortion.
February 26th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
The First Amendment states that the government shall “pass no law respecting an establishment of religion”. That means that the government has no place in forcing any citizen to live by a religious belief (such as life beginning at conception, abortion being murder, etc) that he or she does not believe in. Period. It’s right there, Number 1 in the constitution. For the government to force all people to live by the pro-life beliefs is basically the government controlling what people are allowed to believe and practice in their private lives. If that’s how you want to live, please move to Iran.
March 7th, 2006 at 6:00 am
Thank you Jennifer. I would say that sums is up beautifully. When does personhood begin? This is a question largely answered by ones own spiritual views.
March 11th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Does anyone recall why abortion was made legal? Does anyone recall the back room abortionists who accidentally sterilized women, endangered their long term health, or killed them? Does anyone recall the stigma of being an un-wed mother, or of being a rape victim?
I believe abortion should be an informed decision. It is a difficult decision to choose between raising an unwanted child, adoption or abortion. None of these choices come without serious costs to the emotional, psychological, and financial well being of the mother. However, it is up to the mother to make the choice that she can live with.
Of all the choices, I myself would advocate adoption. It is probably the most beneficial choice for the child. No one should have to make the choice between the life of the mother and the life of the child. Perhaps science one day will be able to save those children who put the life/health of the mother at risk.
However, believe it is a personal matter between the parents and their moral conscious. No man/person has the right to interfere.
As to the political interference, the constitution guarantees “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”, are we to infer that women are excluded?
April 20th, 2006 at 10:39 am
interesting….
of the 14 states normally included in America’s “Bible Belt” (excluding eastern Texas and Southern Virginia), all but 5 are dominantly “pro-life”. The only exceptions were Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Kansas, and South Carolina. I was surprised about the South Carolina one.
Other facts:
49% of pregnancies are unintended
In 1997, about 15 out of every 100 females aged 18-19 were pregnant; that is about 1 per every 10
Roughly 1 in every 3 women will have an abortion before the age of 45, 60% will be done on women with one or more children already, 2/3 aer given to women never married, 2/3 say they cannot afford a child, 54% said they used some form of contraception during the month they became pregnant, and about 13,000 women have abortions each year following a rape or incest.
ok, now for my opinion, “To give a fetus (not a CHILD, not a PERSON, not a HUMAN) “rights” superior to a pregnant woman in to eradicate the woman’s right to her body”.