A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves “pro-life” on the issue of abortion and 42% “pro-choice.” This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.
When a poll was made showing a large number of Catholics supposedly sided with Notre Dame’s invitation to Pres. Obama, I seemed to bump into the poll everywhere in the MSM. However, over a week-ago the very reputable polling firm Rasmussen came out with opposite results showing 60% of Catholics (and 66%of Evangelicals and 52% of Protestants) siding against Notre Dame. Of course, the polls were worded differently. The first poll asked about Obama being “invited” and the Rasmussen Poll asked –more accurately– about Obama being “honored.”
Funny how I have seen this second poll hardly anywhere in the MSM.
Now we see the reputable Gallup finding a huge turn-around in public sentiment on abortion. But this polling question has been around a while with Gallup and presumably wording has not affected the outcome.
So it will be interesting to see how the MSM handles (or ignores totally) this most recent poll on abortion.
I so very much wish that this development represented the beginnings of a fundamental shift in public consciousness. But – imagine if this question had been followed by another, asked of those who said they were pro-life: ‘Will your pro-life stance influence how you vote at elections?’ My hunch is that for most people the answer would be No. And yet. We can hope, and pray that this is a sign of the tanker beginning its long turn around.
I would likewise be curious to see if this is indeed accurate. Polls are very fickle things, and nothing is more deceptive than “obvious” polling numbers which are completely dependent on how you finesse the questions.
That having been said, I am more inclined to believe, based on my personal experience, that this might actually be a true trend at present. While I am still a bit hesitant to identify myself as “pro-life,” mainly because of the political ramifications and connotations that the term does injustice to, I have certainly become more and more pro-life leaning in the last few years.
I never agreed with the morality of abortion in most instances, but there was a time when I was fairly “pro-choice.” I never was happy about admitting that, and I was a little hesitant at that point in my life with that term as well because the term brought up images in my mind of rabid “abortion is a blessing” NARAL types, which I would more properly classify as “pro-abortion,” a totally different classification in connotation to my mind than “pro-choice.”
As I have become more reflective on theological and ethical issues and began to engage the Church’s moral teachings on such issues, I still remain a States’ rights leftover Dixiecrat in my heart of hearts, and so part of me wants to say leave it to the States to decide the issue for themselves. But I have certainly moved in my thinking closer to the “pro-life” side and no longer identify myself by “pro-choice” monikers.
Polls also often ask for opinions without inquiring how important an issue is with the individual.
Well, we could always pull a page out of Al Gore’s handbook and declare that since there is now a consensus in the country, and that the science is settled via poll numbers showing a majority — as a result, the debate is over, there is no need for more debate,* and because lives are at stake we need to act now to enact legislature to overturn Roe, and those who disagree need to shut up and let us get on with the business of saving unborn lives.**
Of course, that will never happen, because that only works for the liberals.
Jim Elliott
Florida
*happily borrowed from a Rush Limbaugh monologue
**phrasing from Al Gore’s “Earth in the Balance”
Every pro-life initiative in recent memory has been introduced either as a cynical “wedge issue” (intended to make opponents vote against it and look bad) or a first step intended to overturn Roe v Wade. Maybe moderates feel freer to be moderately pro-life nowadays, because it’s not quite the political football it once was.
I don’t see how 8% of the population changes its mind on the issue in a single year, without any significant events to drive it.
I think the second graph is more relevant: 1/4 support total illegality, 1/4 always legal, then 50% middle something in between.
The nation is totally divided on the question. Which is why the issue should be in legislatures, not courts.
What makes the Gallup poll so interesting is that it is based on the same wording on this question that they have used since 1995.
As for the TV News using the poll that is most pro-abortion–Tonight at 5pm. CNN again used the poll (Pew) that makes it look like most Catholics approve of what ND is doing with regard to Pres. Obama. No mention of the MORE RECENT and MORE ACCURATELY worded poll taken by Rasmussen that has 60% of Catholics opposed.
But, especially when it comes to religion and moral issues, I think most poll results are a crock, but they tend to be presented in the MSM as virtual absolute Truth.
#6. MarkP,
[blockquote]moderately pro-life[/blockquote]
Help me understand what you mean by this phrase. Does this mean you are pro life but keep it to yourself? It just doesn’t seem like there is a middle ground here.
Dcn Dale says, “It just doesn’t seem like there is a middle ground here.”
Well, as far as my comment goes, it’s enough just to note that it exists. Polls that show people being against “partial birth abortion” but not in favor of outlawing all abortions are evidence of this, as are people who support, say, parental notification laws. There is a moderate pro-life (or moderate pro-choice) position.
I’d say the discomfort with abortion here is unlikely to be based on a belief that the fetus is a full person. Whatever you think about that, I think a moderate pro-life case can be made on other grounds as well: abortion as an unhealthy response to God’s offer of new life. Obviously, that is less likely to lead to legislation in a country that doesn’t require belief in God of its citizens!
A lot of people sense a continuum, based on both the motivation of the parents (ranging from say response to rape or incest on one end to basic birth control on the other) and on the stage of development of the pregnancy. My wife and I experienced three miscarriages while we were trying to have children, and subsequently gave birth (thank God!). The early miscarriages were traumatic and horrible, but incomparably less than they would have been in the ninth month, and that would have been incomparably less than if our child had died soon after birth. I would give up my life in a heartbeat for my daughters, but I never would have made that trade to start up the heart of one of those fetuses, no matter how much I strained to hear that heartbeat at the ultrasound session. That’s a psychological fact that may or may not make sense in ethical theory.
… I meant to add this:
So, let’s celebrate our common ground! And let’s work for our common goals, without cynically using our agreement to discredit each others political team. That’s why I’ve found it hard to label myself anything but pro-choice during the Bush years.