Gallup: More Americans Pro-life Than 'Pro-choice' for First Time; Forecast Is For Establishment Media Blackout

Photo of Tom Blumer.
  • Bookmark and Share

What a difference a radical, in your face, abortion-promoting president makes.

Pro-lifers can savor this graphic for a few minutes before returning to the trenches to work on persuading what Gallup says is, for the first since it began surveying the question, a clear minority of Americans who are still euphemistically "pro-choice" on the question of abortion. I have posted it here because the chances of seeing it or something similar in establishment media reports is somewhere between slim and none:

GallupProlifeSwing0509

The 15-point swing from "pro-choice" to pro-life (from -6 to +9) in the past year is nothing short of dramatic; only the 1996-1997 narrowing looks to be about the same.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Digging deeper, self-identified Catholics -- as opposed to real Catholics, who by definition must be 100% pro-life (see Paragraph 2271 at link; Catholic vote-related responsibilities are outlined here) -- are now 52% pro-life (up from 45% a year ago), but still trail Protestants (59% pro-life, up from 52%). 31% of all others (up from 27%) are pro-life.

Gallup's "Bottom Line" is not bad, but it obscures an important point (bold is mine):

With the first pro-choice president in eight years already making changes to the nation's policies on funding abortion overseas, expressing his support for the Freedom of Choice Act, and moving toward rescinding federal job protections for medical workers who refuse to participate in abortion procedures, Americans -- and, in particular, Republicans -- seem to be taking a step back from the pro-choice position. However, the retreat is evident among political moderates as well as conservatives.

It is possible that, through his abortion policies, Obama has pushed the public's understanding of what it means to be "pro-choice" slightly to the left, politically. While Democrats may support that, as they generally support everything Obama is doing as president, it may be driving others in the opposite direction.

I'm not buying the bolded statment (and yeah, I know that Gallup's descriptions of becoming pro-life as "as a step back" and "a retreat" are obviously biased).

Instead, I believe that the ascendance of Dear Leader Barack Obama has unmasked what being "pro-choice" on abortion is all about. What I believe has really happened is that many of the switchers, with some help from Catholic and other clerics who have finally found their too-long-lost tongues, have learned that being "pro-choice," though a nearly sure bet for avoiding arguments at PC cocktail parties, has real-world consequences that have nothing to do with "choice."

To refresh, examples of Obama's appalling abortion-supporting record, campaign statements, campaign promises, and campaign tactics up to his election included the following (Sources - Princeton Professor Robert P. George’s Public Discourse essays, “Obama’s Abortion Extremism” and “Obama and Infanticide,” excerpting with some paraphrasing from what was assembled in this brilliant post at Pro Ecclesia, who also excerpted from George):

  • Obama expressed support for legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions, and which has been credited with saving over a million lives.
  • Obama, unlike even many allegedly "pro-choice" legislators, opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature and condemned the Supreme Court decision that upheld legislation banning this heinous practice.
  • On the campaign trail, Obama referred to a baby conceived inadvertently by a young woman as a “punishment” that she should not have to endure.
  • Obama has stated that women’s equality requires access to abortion on demand.
  • Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, did not and has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life, meant to reduce abortions by providing assistance for women facing crisis pregnancies.
  • Obama, as an Illinois state senator, opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist’s unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. The Obama campaign lied about his vote until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done. In fact, Obama continued to lie about his inhuman voting record in regard to the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, and even stooped so low as to run a disgusting television ad attacking the disabled survivor of a botched abortion.

A complete compilation of Obama's complete abortion-supporting record during transition and since his inauguration up to May 11 is here at LifeNews.com. Lowlights include:

  • January 23, 2009 - Forces taxpayers to fund pro-abortion groups that either promote or perform abortions in other nations. Decison to overturn Mexico City Policy sends part of $457 million to pro-abortion organizations.
  • February 27, 2009 - Starts the process of overturning pro-life conscience protections President Bush put in place to make sure medical staff and centers are not forced to do abortions.
  • March 9, 2009 - Obama signed an executive order forcing taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research.
  • March 11, 2009 - Obama signed an executive order establishing a new agency within his administration known as the White House Council on Women and Girls. Obama's director of public liaison at the White House, Tina Tchen, an abortion advocate, became director of it.
  • March 11, 2009 - Obama administration promotes an unlimited right to abortion at a United Nations meeting.
  • March 17, 2009 - Obama makes his first judicial appointment and names pro-abortion federal Judge David Hamilton to serve on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
  • March 26 - President Obama announced $50 million for the UNFPA, the UN population agency that has been criticized for promoting abortion and working closely with Chinese population control officials who use forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations.
  • April 23 - Refused to appeal a ruling requiring the FDA to allow 17-year-old girls to purchase the morning after pill without either a doctor visit or parental involvement beforehand.
  • May 5 - Details emerge about a terrorism dictionary the administration of President Barack Obama put together in March. The Domestic Extremism Lexicon calls pro-life advocates violent and claims they employ racist overtones in engaging in criminal actions.
  • May 8 - President Obama releases a new budget that allows the Legal Services Corporation to use tax dollars to pay for pro-abortion litigation.
  • May 8 - President Obama's new budget calls for taxpayer funded abortions in the nation's capital, and eliminates all federal funding for abstinence-only education.

But Obama the presidential candidate also promised that "the first thing I’d do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)," which would create a federally guaranteed “fundamental right” to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including "a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined ‘health’ reasons", and would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry.

Perhaps the focus-group obsessives at Team Obama detected a few weeks ago what Gallup has just reported, because the President switched gears in his April 29 press conference, saying that "The Freedom of Choice Act is not my highest legislative priority."

If the administration and Congress are waiting for public sentiment to return being euphemistically "pro-choice" so they can push FOCA through without fear of electoral consequences, they may have a long wait. I would suggest that it is just as likely that the pro-life margin will increase in the coming years.

If establishment media reports concentrate on anything, it will be a potential "male chauvinist pig" angle. There is a 10-point difference between men, who are pro-life by 54-39, and women, whose pro-life margin is 49-44.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

pro life

jessieH          This doesn't surprise me at all.

I always felt most people were pro-life anyway

but the government imposed the minority's will on the people, like other things, i.e. gay marriage.  If you take this issue to a vote, I guarantee you it would be abolished.  However, the liberal Supreme Court justices made the decisions for the common folk once again.  Thanks again elitisits, where would we be without you?

 

When the people fear the government it's called tyranny, when the government fears the people it's called liberty!

Wow

Being a person that is a believer in polls, this is quite shocking. I thought with all the liberal teachers today that people would be more pro choice than pro life. I wonder if there are more recent polls out there, one poll usually does not prove much

He had my vote

I believe the bishops ....

.... or at least a few of them, have made a difference, and the Notre Dame thing is also focusing Catholics and others on the issue.

I think it's going to at least have staying power even after the ND event. If Obama says something dumb, the pro-life movement could get another shot in the arm. I'll bet his handlers are going to have him clinging to his teleprompter(s).

I hope so.

In the video of Obama that Dave linked to in the Planned Parenthood thread, the President is saying to the PP audience that we need a change of attitude in the Supreme Court.

Not a change in laws....a change in attitude of those who interpret the laws.

So we all know what the litmus test will be.

They might say "Wow, that sucks!"  But at least they'll say "Wow!"  -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes

Tom like I said earlier

If a few more polls came out with the same result, I will be convinced on the shift. One or two polls do not mean much, but when the same results are shown for about a week straight then there is definately a trend

He had my vote

I used to think the same

I used to think the same thing and would be surprised that the country seemed to be shifting to more pro-life. But there is a new movement of people now that consider themselves pro-life morally, yet pro-choice legally. As in, they don't think the women that have abortions should be prosecuted for murder. They aren't "pro-abortion" or supporters of it by any means. They just believe the govt should stay out of it in this circumstance, as with other moral sins (i.e. adultery, gay marriage, divorce, etc)

 

here we go again

Law is intimately linked with morality (or ethics if you will).  Period.  This argument ("I'm pro-life morally but pro-choice legally") is a copout.  It is immoral/unethical for one to drive at unsafe speeds putting others in danger; thus we have speed limits.  It is immoral/unethical to shoplift (steal); thus shoplifting is a crime.  It is immoral/unethical to have sex with an otherwise consenting minor; thus there are age-of-consent laws.  Etcetera.

So, what about an infant who has just been popped out?  Should the government "butt-out" of that "private moment" as well and allow "choice"?  Or should we "secure the blessings of liberty to... our posterity" ?

 

"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann

morality

I believe it is morally wrong for a lawyer to defend someone that he  knows deep inside is guilty of rape or murder, but I do not believe it should be illegal for the defendent to have a right to council.

He had my vote

Yes, but...

...nevertheless, the issue is still a moral one.  For example, in this case, it would also be immoral for a lawyer to contractually assume the duty of "confidant" and "advocate" but then betray his client.  It is not for that lawyer to decide -- he is not the judge and jury.  Now, that said, I would also add that in the eyes of the Almighty, it would probably be best for that lawyer to recuse himself.

In the end, a civilized, humane society passes laws in accordance with its morality.  Right now, we seem to be very confused about our morality, as we continue to deny our very origins as a nation.  So again, I say, this whole dichotomy of moral versus legal is a strawman and a cop-out.

 

"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann

shawn: I think it has

shawn: I think it has something to do with the fact that now that Obama is POTUS, he can no longer hide his extremist views on abortion. Perhaps the increase in pro-life support is not so much a matter of the "right to choose" as it is looking at just where the pro-choice agenda leads.  Even pro-choicers can see that partial birth abortion is wrong and that allowing a living baby to die because it was the intent of the mother to abort cannot be justified by any reasonable human being.

GO CAVS!!!!!

Regardless QM

No matter what my own personal views on abortion are, I still believe the majority of the US is pro choice. It would take about a week or maybe even a month of a similar result to show a trend

He had my vote

Shawn, I think the second, third, etc. corroborating polls ....

.... are inside the WH, and explain why Obama is pulling back on FOCA and hoping for a more opportune time.

Agreed, shawn

As pro-life as I am, I'm also cautious about polls. One or two mean little, and once or twice means little. However, the fact that there has been any change at all means it's something to watch out for.

What I'd like to see polled is the reason why people are classified as pro-choice. Is it because they actually think that abortion itself is moral, or is it because they don't think that government should make a law about it? If I'm not mistaken, a significant majority of people think abortion is morally wrong, but they think it's an act of personal morality, and that government shouldn't interfere. I've always been willing to argue the morality of it, but in the last couple of years, I've come to agree that this is a waste of time, since the overwhelming majority already agree that it's immoral. 

The effort to win over people to the pro-life side should focus more on the question of government involvement. I'll bet most people assume that a fetus "becomes" a person somewhere along the line as it grows, but that it isn't a person at the earliest stages. And until it becomes an actual person, government should stay out. Now I think that argument collapses the moment you take the time to examine it. But we never get to that argument, because we're diverted by opponents (i.e., the media) who frame the issue as a scientific issue being hijacked by religion.

Shawn,This Month"s Polls,

How much more current can we get?

It is one poll asking

It is one poll asking questions to people for 3 days. I would just like to see a few more polls for it to be more consistent

He had my vote

Shawn

The daily polls came in the same. The weekly was from 05/07-05/10. The daily polls were from 05/12-05/13 or thereabouts. These polls are telling.

"This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008

Restless

I am a believer in polls when it is the same result for weeks at a time. For example the low approval rating for George Bush was consistenty under 35 percent for close to a year, and that was including FOX news polls, or the current low approval rating for the Democratic congress has been in the dumper even worse the last Democratic congress which  has  stayed under 20 percent sinced January.

He had my vote

I'm suspect of the poll too

It could be used to drop our guard. However it may show we are doing things right. I really believe that Obama's record has helped too. I find many people disgusted with late-term abortion and understand that in this country, it will be 100% one way or another eventually. Eventually if abortion is allowed in the U.S., it will be dictated to us that abortions can be performed at any time, for any reason, and the 'any reason' seems to be why the bulk of abortions are performed now.

http://teleprompteri...

...

Sorry, I'm not impressed.  It does no good to be prolife when you vote in radical proabortionists thereby defeating the whole puprose of being prolife.  How many of these prolifers are the "I'm prolife but..." types or radical feminists considering themselves prolife because they believe the life of the mother is the most important?  Until our laws reflect real change in support of the unborn, then I'll be impressed. 

This is HUGE!

A pro-life jump from 44% to 51% is huge.  A ”pro-choice” decline from 50% to 42% is even bigger!

I would certainly not bet against your conjecture that there will be a general blackout about this in the Degenerate Media.  Assuming that that happens, will the great Obaminable equivocator get the message?  My bet is NO.

Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.

Here's to hope

Genesis 18:32 (New Living Translation)

Finally, Abraham said, “Lord, please don’t be angry with me if I speak one more time. Suppose only ten are found there?”

And the Lord replied, “Then I will not destroy it for the sake of the ten.”

 

 

You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?

Dvdaughtry...

The scripture you just quoted explains the only reason God hasn't drop kicked this planet yet....there are still quietly righteous people amongst the noisy dregs of society.  Thankfully.

I have always been struck by

I have always been struck by the fact that the political left imposed abortion on us through the Court.  If a clear majority of Americans had ever supported abortion on demand, a popular vote would have been the way to go, but that was never permitted.  I think the prolife majority is much larger, as many people who answer a poll do so by going along with what is considered the prevailing opinion, and proabortion has been the prevailing opinion since 1973.

...Dots....

Nice....

...Dots.....

I Got Nothin'....

.....HEY LOOK.....

............................................A Chicken.....

Hmmmm.....

I Got Nothin'

Sad.

Ster.

 

??????????

§ Yes...A Chicken. ANY QUESTIONS????

You see a Chicken.

What do you do???

Hmmmm....

WHAT DO YOU DO????!!!?!?!?!

Answer???

Ster.

I really don't know ster

Make fried chicken out of it?   Is it some self pleasuring simile like choking it? I really don't know Ster

He had my vote

Even the crickets will be silent on this one!

Talk about an inconvenient truth!

It gives me hope that this country is not completely lost already. Maybe, just maybe, we can reclaim the liberty that the founders intended for us, their posterity.

Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!

www.loyaltoliberty.com

We have a problem called education.

Students learn it is a baby.  It is not a glob.  It has a heartbeat.  Obama con only get so far pushing ignorance. 

A majority still want.,...

abortion to be legal in some form:

Still, the dominant position on this question remains the middle
option, as it has continuously since 1975: 53% currently say abortion
should be legal only under certain circumstances.
(e.m.)

Also, as another poster pointed out, this shift in public opinion means nothing (policy change wise) since the public still elects extremely pro-abortion politicians into office. 

Finally, I find it sad that the public "opinion" only shifts after the pro-life President is out of office. 

If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love youBut if you really make them think, they'll hate you.

Don Marquis 1878-1937

Because

Completely caused by the MSM. Because of their love for The One, they think whatever he spews forth, is great for the country. However they spewed so much about abortion, people are sickened.

 

http://teleprompteri...

Thanks for posting this Tom

even if it does look a bit familiar.

It does seem that when faced with the possibility of unfettered abortion, most will back away from the pro-death side.

Particularly encouraging is the moderates siding with life in bigger numbers as well. Proof to me that we will win moderates with conservative principles, not by moving left.

"This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008

R1, the "not by moving left" point is as clear as it can be

An excellent point I had to leave on the cutting room floor since the post was already pretty long.

As to the timing of your comment, my BizzyBlog post went up at 9:17, so it beat me by 31 minutes .... and I saw the headline at Drudge.

Cut me some slack for needing time (like an hour or so) to draft the post, esp with the Obama campaign and presidential records. :-->

 

Just ribbing you a bit Tom

Besides, it is much better to have this as an article. Just chalk it up to GMTA. :)

"This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008

Hmm.. 51% of Americans are potential terrorists?

Hmm.. 51% of Americans are potential terrorists?

According to Obamas' Department of Homeland Security:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.’

sad

if only people would have voted their conscience instead of their wallet.

___________________________________________ 
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past - George Orwell - 1984

Principles! Man. That’s what counts!

"If only people would have voted their conscience instead of their wallet."

If people had voted their conscience, their wallets would be in much better shape!

Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.

§ I HATE THESE POLLS!!! Make It More FUN!!!!

I Know I'm not ALONE!!!

Sorry.....Just Making a POINT!!!

LOL!!!

Think About IT!!

I Want MORE!!!!

Hmmmmmm....

Ster.

Fox News/Opiion Dynamics Poll results

As I was reading this article, Fox News did a story about the results of their most recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll on this issue

5/09        4/04      8/97

Pro-Life         49%       47%      40%

Pro-Choice     43%       44%      50%

Registered voters; +/- 3%

Seems to be a trend here that mirrors the Gallup results

Of course, this polling

Of course, this polling question is a bit naive.  Someone who would be in favor of definite and absolute restrictions on abortion (i.e., someone who would be against abortion-on-demand) might still consider themselves "pro-choice" as opposed to "pro-life" -- the term "pro-life" has a definite all-or-nothing tone, whereas "pro-choice" has a more gray-area tone.  The majority of Americans have always favored a certain degree of restrictions, but what we have de jure (as well as the "small-tent" Democratic Party platform) is unmitigated abortion-on-demand.

 

"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann

...

Exactly.

To your point:

It's worthwhile to review the entire poll:

"Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?" (data 1975 through 2009)

.......................    high/yr              low/yr            '09

Any circ.             34%/'92            22%/'75          23%

Certain circ.         61%/'98            48%/'92          53%

No circ.               22%/'09            12%/'96          22%

Clearly, the vast majority still view some defiintion of 'Choice' favorably. The most dramatic shift is within the polar crowds: all, or nothing.

What is interesting is that we tend to view one another's positions in the extreme when, in fact, most of us are not.

Abortion is the hottest button on women's reproductive rights, but each camp has a profoudly different position on how to reduce the number of unwanted (primarly teenage) pregnancies; it seems to me this is precisely where we ought to be able to find common ground.

Reduce unwanted pregnancy, the very need for abortion is automatically reduced.

Hey Tom...sure glad you

Hey Tom...sure glad you have this here..I heard about this earlier on Rush today.

We all know in the real world the majority of the msm will of course be mum about this...and they just love their daily polls as long as it is a poll they can use that fits their agenda...

Won't hear much about this until they take their own polls of course they will be different dontcha know.

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

A Retreat from Hell is an Advance toward Heaven

"and yeah, I know that Gallup's descriptions of becoming pro-life as 'as a step back' and 'a retreat' are obviously biased"

I disagree. Those descriptions may have been intended that way or not, I don't know, but what I do know is that "a step back" and "a retreat" can be taken in two ways, depending upon what's being stepped back from. If you're stepping back from something good, then that's obviously a bad thing, but if you're stepping back from a precipice that would lead to your doom it's a good thing indeed.

The picture I had in my mind when I read that was of people stepping back from a social and moral precipice, while the "death to babies" crowd no doubt took it as a retreat from "progress" and/or victory. Can't get more down the middle than that, methinks.

Good point ....

.... whether Gallup meant it that way or not.

Guess the old hippies are

Guess the old hippies are deciding that grand kids are pretty cool after all?

One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).

It's worthwhile to review the entire poll:

"Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?" (data 1975 through 2009)

.......................    high/yr              low/yr            '09

Any circ.             34%/'92            22%/'75          23%

Certain circ.         61%/'98            48%/'92          53%

No circ.               22%/'09            12%/'96          22%

Clearly, the vast majority still view some defiintion of 'Choice' favorably. The most dramatic shift is within the polar crowds: all, or nothing.

What is interesting is that we tend to view one another's positions in the extreme when, in fact, most of us are not.

Abortion is the hottest button on women's reproductive rights, but each camp has a profoudly different position on how to reduce the number of unwanted (primarily teenage) pregnancies; it seems to me this
is precisely where we ought to be able to find common ground.

Reduce unwanted pregnancy, the very need for abortion is automatically reduced.

I would suggest that the "certain circumstances" ....

.... have NEVER accounted for more than a tiny percentage of all abortions (i.e., rape, incest, honestly determined "life and health of mother"), and that seeing significance in this percentage as an okey-dokey for anything beyond what I just cited isn't warranted.

Never say never.

You're certainly free to suggest this, nonetheless, the defintion of 'certain circumstances' is indeed widely varied; too varied for it to be a factor in this particular poll.

Although one can easily cherry-pick the data to suit their own position, here's a good place to see how subject-to-interpretation the 'certain circumstances' definition is:

http://www.pollingre...

Yup

"Reduce unwanted pregnancy, the very need for abortion is automatically reduced."

I absolutely agree. A return to chastity and self-restraint is exactly what we need. As a bonus, this will further inculcate moral virtue and moral habits in women, who will choose not to abort any children they do conceive because it is an objectively evil act. 

There can be no common ground with me on contraception. The promotion of contraception as an answer to abortion is a transparent bit of sophistry. It says: in order to prevent the murder of a person, the answer is to prevent the person. But that thinking is as clearly a part of the culture of death and non-being as abortion is and cannot be part of any legitimate "strategy."

The Left is really into that argument, btw. They use it for everything: the answer to the problem of suffering or inconvenience to others in old age is to prevent old age (via euthenasia). The answer to the problem of the muggings of citizens on the street is to prevent citizens from being on the street. The answer to the problem of terrorists attacking America is to prevent America. Etc. etc. etc. It goes on and on and on...

Nope.

I wrote:

"What is interesting is that we tend to view one another's positions in the extreme when, in fact, most of us are not."

... clearly, you're not in the 'most of us' camp. You seem a modestly self-aware person, no doubt you understand your views regarding contraception are quite extreme; regardless of differing views on the abortion issue, there are indeed very few women (nor men, for that matter) in the US that would give up the right to use contraception; in present context, its use is to prevent pregnancy, not to prevent 'murder' (your term). Inarguably, where
there is no conception, there can be no 'murder'.

As to the rest of your contentions regarding the Left's views and/or solutions to social issues, well, I'm completely unaware of any legitimate evidence that speaks to your assertions.   

Yep

Contraception fails.  That's is the primary reason (as in 99% of cases) for abortion.  It therefore follows that the mind boggling abortion rate is the direct result of the contraceptive ("safe sex" [sic]) mentality.

Consider condoms for example: About 10 in 100 women can expect to get pregnant in a year from consistent usage.  When applied to 75,000,000 people, that leaves us with 7,500,000 (7.5 million) "unwanted pregnancies" in a year.  Does that sound "rare" to you??

This is not about how "extreme" one's position is -- this is about acknowledging "inconvenient truths."  Mind you, no one here (to my knowledge) is advocating for laws against contraception (for one thing, the free market simply won't allow that).  But we are making the point that if one sincerely wants to commit to "keeping abortions rare," then one must necessarily commit to the idea of that form of self-discipline known as "abstinence outside of marriage."

 

 

"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann

Well stated, db

The Left is really into that argument, btw. They use it for everything: the answer to the problem of suffering or inconvenience to others in old age is to prevent old age (via euthenasia). The answer to the problem of the muggings of citizens on the street is to prevent citizens from being on the street. The answer to the problem of terrorists attacking America is to prevent America. Etc. etc. etc. It goes on and on and on...

Yes, I've seen that point made before... but perhaps not often enough.  It's good to see it articulated like that.  :)