Abortion Doctor's Murder Trial Opens

[rlg94086]

I have not seen these attitudes at all. We are told to be loving, prayerful, forgiving. There are countless shelters and free pregnancy centers that help women in crisis pregnancies. I volunteer in one.

It’s NARAL, PP, and the media that are painting this picture, not reality.

So, our goal is not to ban abortion to punish women, drive them into poverty and exacerbate gendercide? Huh. Weird.

The reality is that the left have created this impression through their pro-choice propaganda machines. Some people fall for it, unfortunately.

 

[bellasbane]

I have not seen these attitudes at all. We are told to be loving, prayerful, forgiving. There are countless shelters and free pregnancy centers that help women in crisis pregnancies. I volunteer in one.

It’s NARAL, PP, and the media that are painting this picture, not reality.

Consider this in the spirit of fraternal correction:

LisaA;10657866:

Oh and please tell me why women would find a trans vaginal ultrasound “humiliation” but don’t seem to suffer humiliation when the instruments and laminaria are inserted into their cervixes THROUGH THEIR VAGINAS. How do you think the dead babies are expelled? Through the woman’s belly button? So it’s humiliating to have an ultrasound probe inserted but not a curette? Same pathway bellasbane.

Good one, Lisa. How about being penetrated by a partner that is not interested in being a father?

Somehow, people forget what causes pregnancy anyway. It’s not something you “catch.”

You may not think your exchange with Lisa comes off as “uncaring and judgmental” but trust me, it does.

 

[losh14]

I’ll offer one comment and swing back to topic (realizing that straying too far from topic is an easy way to close the thread):

It reminds me that we have to triage our efforts as we work to change the culture. We are dealing with a spectrum of belief and some people are way out there in scary land. Fortunately, I do think this is a minority view. I think something like 70% of Americans believe abortion is the taking of a human life. That’s very hopeful.

I’m glad to be able to speak to common ground. I found a citation - it’s not a very good one since it refers to pro-life as “forced birther movement” but it references a 2011 gallup poll that shows two interesting, though not straight-forward, beliefs:

• 41% of Americans call themselves “Pro-Choice”
• 51% consider abortion morally wrong
• 44% want abortion outlawed
• 54% want abortion to remain legal
• 70% oppose overturning Roe v Wade

From:
dailykos.com/story/2013/01/22/1181141/-New-poll-shows-that-yes-Americans-want-abortion-to-remain-legal-Still#

So up to 26% (70% who don’t want to overturn Roe minus 54% who want abortion to stay legal) want abortion outlawed but don’t disagree with Roe, at least 7% (51% minus 44%) consider abortion wrong but don’t want it outlawed. Lots of nuances and niches. These are the kinds of numbers we’d expect from people who are conflicted. We can’t say “overwhelming” in any category - rather that the ones who are comfortable with the way things are, are relatively few.

Back to topic:

Rep Marsha Blackburn on the O’reilly Factor discussing the letter 72 members of congress sent to mainstream media regarding coverage of Kermit Gosnell:

foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/index.html#http://video.foxnews.com/v/2325464925001/congress-outraged-at-lack-of-gosnell-media-coverage/?playlist_id=86923

Paraphrase from Rep Blackburn: states that have instituted investigations into abortion clinics where nurses have quit because of what they describe as “unsafe mass-market style abortions”. This is the kind of thing that is being swept under the rug (O’Reilly adds ‘by a sympathetic media’).

I’ll also add this commentary from NPR to show how pro-choice has spun this:
npr.org/blogs/health/2013/04/24/178826212/philadelphia-case-exposes-deep-rift-in-abortion-debate
Joffe says a key reason Gosnell had patients in the first place is because the government doesn’t pay for abortions for poor women. Even with its reputation for substandard care, Gosnell’s clinic was all many poor women could afford.

and pro-life has re-spun it:
“It’s such a horrific case,” says Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of the anti-abortion group Americans United for Life. “You see both the horrific destruction of innocent human life with the babies, but it also helps to illustrate our concern over how women are being treated in abortion clinics — as terrible commodities to increase the bottom line.”

One very interesting - and frightening - take-away is the impact of a newly-passed Pennsylvania law requiring greater standards:

Joffe says a new Pennsylvania law passed in the wake of the Gosnell revelations has resulted in many abortion clinics that were providing perfectly safe care having to shut their doors.

“Pennsylvania used to have 22 facilities; now they have 13,” she says. “The city of Pittsburgh used to have four clinics, now they’re down to two.”

We could describe this as “women now have half as many options” or “9 clinics have been operating below safety levels for how many years?”

Here’s where I have difficulty with the argument that standards will force women into less safe abortions - the clinics that remain open are the clinics that are up to standard. If it’s an issue of money, it’s not like abortion doesn’t have people willing to fund it. According to influenceexplorer.com, NARAL spent $2.5M last year alone on campaign finance, and Planned Parenthood spent $14M as well.

Meanwhile Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania lamented that it cost nearly half a million to upgrade two facilities:
npr.org/2013/03/28/175459510/pennsylvania-tightens-abortion-rules-following-clinic-deaths

“Overall the cost was about $450,000 to get two of our facilities into compliance,” says CEO Dayle Steinberg. The nonprofit had to install hands-free sinks. Tile floors were torn out and replaced with seamless floors that are easier to clean. The clinic’s heating and air-conditioning system was upgraded and a new room was built to house sterilization equipment."

Sinks? Sterilization equipment? C’mon, the restaurant I worked in during college had hands-free sinks.This is a medical facility, it should act as a medical facility. To complain otherwise - or insist that the government subsidize it - suggests poor management and a severe misplacement of priorities.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Fox News Poll: Voters think media bias behind lack of Gosnell trial coverage

‘This Is Murder and It Must Be Stopped’

Pro-Life Advocate Says Kermit Gosnell Should be Spared the Death Penalty

The ‘entire abortion industry’ is on trial in Gosnell case: 37 pro-life leaders in open letter

Eighteen Members of Congress Expose Kermit Gosnell in Speeches

Obama Is Ducking the Gosnell Abortion Controversy

 

[bellasbane]

I’ll offer one comment and swing back to topic (realizing that straying too far from topic is an easy way to close the thread):

I’m glad to be able to speak to common ground. I found a citation - it’s not a very good one since it refers to pro-life as “forced birther movement” but it references a 2011 gallup poll that shows two interesting, though not straight-forward, beliefs:

• 41% of Americans call themselves “Pro-Choice”
• 51% consider abortion morally wrong
• 44% want abortion outlawed
• 54% want abortion to remain legal
• 70% oppose overturning Roe v Wade

From:
dailykos.com/story/2013/01/22/1181141/-New-poll-shows-that-yes-Americans-want-abortion-to-remain-legal-Still#

So up to 26% (70% who don’t want to overturn Roe minus 54% who want abortion to stay legal) want abortion outlawed but don’t disagree with Roe, at least 7% (51% minus 44%) consider abortion wrong but don’t want it outlawed. Lots of nuances and niches. These are the kinds of numbers we’d expect from people who are conflicted. We can’t say “overwhelming” in any category - rather that the ones who are comfortable with the way things are, are relatively few.

Sometimes statistics are easier to interpret if they are all flipped in the same direction and ordered by magnitude. For example:

• 59% of Americans do not consider themselves to be “Pro-Choice”
• 51% consider abortion morally wrong
• 46% want abortion to be illegal
• 44% want abortion outlawed
• 30% support overturning Roe v Wade

The label “pro-choice” is politically loaded, which could account for why some people refuse to be labeled “pro-choice” even though they won’t go so far as saying abortion is morally wrong. I am going to go out on a limb and put that 8% into the “moral relativist” camp. That is, the kind of people who say they don’t believe in abortion for themselves, but think that is a personal decision, etc.

Averaging the next two (which really measure the same thing) gives us a solid 45% of people who want abortion to be outlawed or illegal. However, I would again guess that at least 15% do not favor an absolute ban on abortion, because…

Only 30% favor overturning Roe vs. Wade.

I don’t know how the different questions were asked, but that can change the results as well. For example, when people are asked whether they think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or always illegal the numbers break out differently, but the bottom line generally comes to about 25% of the population wanting to keep abortion legal in all circumstances.

Here’s a summary of the different polls:
pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

Getting back to the topic:

I would like to see whether this gruesome case has any influence on the numbers. The pro-life side is working hard to make people see the insanity of using a minor geographical distinction as the basis by which our legal system determines whether a action is a legal “medical procedure” or first degree homicide. But the abortion rights folks are working hard to spin it so that its about the need to make abortion safe and legal. They are trying, but I don’t think its working.

 

[LisaA]

Before anyone gets too wrapped around the axle with poll watching, the reality is that polls can be “pushed” by the way the question is framed. For example X% don’t favor overturning Roe v Wade. What they don’t tell you is that many people think if Roe v Wade is reversed, the all abortions will be banned. That is NOT TRUE. There were abortions before Roe (my state leading the way of course BLECH!) although certainly not as many. The theory that if Roe is overturned women will end up with “coat hangers” is also untrue. I had a very interesting dialogue with a local pro abortion advocate who tried to promote his side with lies. That’s the only way they can keep this going. Further most people think that abortions (with a few exceptions) are restricted to very early in the pregnancy. When you tell them that no, you can literally abort a baby seconds before he or she emerges from the birth canal at 9 months they are totally shocked and horrified.

And bless Cardinal Sean, I do not object to his comments obviously, but before I take his homily as the last word on the subject, I consider the many testimonies by post abortive women, the books, articles, and films on the subject. These women do not say they found prolife people to be judgmental and hateful…because most of them never ENCOUNTER a pro-life person before they abort. Most abortions are for convenience, not due to desperation. We have made abortion so easy and so inexpensive in most cases that it is the first not the last resort. Also per my previous post, abortion is easy, anonymous and promoted by the media as a positive option.

Oh and before you think I’m someone who wants “my rosaries on your ovaries” I will confess that I came from the dark side. I know how they think what they think and how they format their arguments. I realize that had I become pregnant I would not have thought twice about having an abortion. I was raised by atheist scientists who didn’t even think some born babies were human, much less the unborn. It was through education and the power of the Holy Spirit that I have changed my outlook completely.

I’m just frustrated that so many of the “powers that be” are aligned toward the evil of abortion rather than the beauty of choosing life. But based on the links from the dark side, we ARE making a difference! That Slate article said “they are winning…”

Lisa

 

[bellasbane]

Before anyone gets too wrapped around the axle with poll watching, the reality is that polls can be “pushed” by the way the question is framed. For example X% don’t favor overturning Roe v Wade.

As Nate Silver likes to explain, a single poll can be skewed, but when multiple polls using a variety of methods all say the same thing, you can be pretty certain its real.

The 30-70 split over Roe v Wade has been a stable for about 20 years.

 

[LisaA]

As Nate Silver likes to explain, a single poll can be skewed, but when multiple polls using a variety of methods all say the same thing, you can be pretty certain its real.

The 30-70 split over Roe v Wade has been a stable for about 20 years.

Yes but once again, I do not dispute the numbers but the way the question is often formatted. People are WOEFULLY ignorant about Roe. I actually read the decision and was stunned by the giant leaps taken by the court. Much talk about the “ether” rather than actual stated law or Constitutional provisons. They used the term pneumbra which means shadow and is also a horror laden and violent game of some kind. How appropriate! Also I believe that the initial decision limited restrictions on abortion to the first trimester only with the “Doe” case adding the ability to abort at any time for any reason.

For example instead of asking people if they think Roe should be reversed, how do you think it would go if the question were "Do you think abortion should be available at any time for any reason or do you think abortion should be limited to the first trimester unless the life of the mother were at stake? Or would you like the states to be able to decide laws regarding abortion or should this be a single national policy?

I bet the answer would be different.

People do NOT like abortion on a whim. They do NOT like late term abortion. They do not want their tax dollars supporting it.

The pro abort community has done a pretty good job hiding the truth. If there is a blessing, all of the revolting details of the Gosnell case will bring a little sunshine to the house of horrors that is abortion.

Lisa

 

[bellasbane]

And bless Cardinal Sean, I do not object to his comments obviously, but before I take his homily as the last word on the subject, I consider the many testimonies by post abortive women, the books, articles, and films on the subject. These women do not say they found prolife people to be judgmental and hateful…because most of them never ENCOUNTER a pro-life person before they abort. Most abortions are for convenience, not due to desperation. We have made abortion so easy and so inexpensive in most cases that it is the first not the last resort. Also per my previous post, abortion is easy, anonymous and promoted by the media as a positive option.

Cardinal Seán is chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Committee on Pro-Life Activities. I think that means he speaks for the agenda of the United States Bishops in this area.

I am delighted to report that I found the text of his homily on the USCCB website. No more having to transcribe it myself!
usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/january-roe-events/cardinal-sean-p-omalley-opening-mass-2013-national-prayer-vigil-for-life.cfm

 

[LisaA]

Cardinal Seán is chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Committee on Pro-Life Activities. I think that means he speaks for the agenda of the United States Bishops in this area.

I am delighted to report that I found the text of his homily on the USCCB website. No more having to transcribe it myself!
usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/january-roe-events/cardinal-sean-p-omalley-opening-mass-2013-national-prayer-vigil-for-life.cfm

That’s lovely, however if I were interested in knowing what post abortive and abortion clinic workers think about the pro life movement, I would ask them rather than a Catholic Cardinal. Yes he speaks for the Bishops but I suspect few Catholic Bishops worked in abortion clinics or have a lot of contact with post abortive women. Father Frank Pavone and other pro life, boots on the ground leaders probably have a lot more insight into the thought process of these women and how to best reach them.

BTW have you done any reading on the subject other than this one homily? All this week Women of Grace has featured an order of priests who focus on healing for postabortive women (and men). Abby Johnson’s book and Lila Rose are also very good sources for how to find and communicate with women considering abortion and those who have had abortions. Of course Fr Frank’s Priests for Life has done incredible work in the area.

I am not in any way discounting Cardinal Sean obviously, but you keep bringing up one homily as if this is the only word on the subject. There is a LOT of material out there…lots of pro life blogs and websites as weal as books on the truth about abortion.

Lisa

 

[bellasbane]

Yes but once again, I do not dispute the numbers but the way the question is often formatted. People are WOEFULLY ignorant about Roe. I actually read the decision and was stunned by the giant leaps taken by the court. Much talk about the “ether” rather than actual stated law or Constitutional provisons. They used the term pneumbra which means shadow and is also a horror laden and violent game of some kind. How appropriate! Also I believe that the initial decision limited restrictions on abortion to the first trimester only with the “Doe” case adding the ability to abort at any time for any reason.

For example instead of asking people if they think Roe should be reversed, how do you think it would go if the question were "Do you think abortion should be available at any time for any reason or do you think abortion should be limited to the first trimester unless the life of the mother were at stake? Or would you like the states to be able to decide laws regarding abortion or should this be a single national policy?

I bet the answer would be different.

People do NOT like abortion on a whim. They do NOT like late term abortion. They do not want their tax dollars supporting it.

The pro abort community has done a pretty good job hiding the truth. If there is a blessing, all of the revolting details of the Gosnell case will bring a little sunshine to the house of horrors that is abortion.

Lisa

Most people know that Roe v Wade is about abortion. They may not know about all the other Supreme Court decisions that deal with abortion rights, but that one they recognize.

You’re right, it was Doe v Bolton that undermined Roe’s Three Tier framework. At least with the original ruling, there was some attempt to contain or regulate abortion rights, but all that went out the door with this second decision.

Most people see the impact of the “Roe” & “Doe” decisions primarily in terms of protecting their own right to make a major life altering decision during a time of real crisis and not just out of convenience. So yes, you are right again,“People do NOT like abortion on a whim. They do NOT like late term abortion. They do not want their tax dollars supporting it.” - but many also do NOT want to give a bunch of elected officials the authority to decide whether or not a pregnancy has become too great a hazard for a woman to continue - and pregnancy is a hazard. It’s a blessing and a gift - but its also risky for any woman.

So here we stand. The vast majority of Americans support reasonable restrictions on abortion rights and nothing happens because a vocal minority who votes on this issue has a powerful lobby that won’t let it happen. Gee, that sounds familiar

Here’s a good article on the history of abortion rulings by the Supreme Court so you don’t have to wade through all that legalize:
pewforum.org/Abortion/A-History-of-Key-Abortion-Rulings-of-the-US-Supreme-Court.aspx

 

[Lion_IRC]

…The pro abort community has done a pretty good job hiding the truth. If there is a blessing, all of the revolting details of the Gosnell case will bring a little sunshine to the house of horrors that is abortion.

Lisa

Science and technology are helping shift public opinion on abortion.
Tons of people posting their ultrasounds on Facebook pregnancy diaries.
Unborn babies have faces.

 

[LisaA]

Most people know that Roe v Wade is about abortion. They may not know about all the other Supreme Court decisions that deal with abortion rights, but that one they recognize.

You’re right, it was Doe v Bolton that undermined Roe’s Three Tier framework. At least with the original ruling, there was some attempt to contain or regulate abortion rights, but all that went out the door with this second decision.

Most people see the impact of the “Roe” & “Doe” decisions primarily in terms of protecting their own right to make a major life altering decision during a time of real crisis and not just out of convenience. So yes, you are right again,“People do NOT like abortion on a whim. They do NOT like late term abortion. They do not want their tax dollars supporting it.” - ***but many also do NOT want to give a bunch of elected officials the authority to decide whether or not a pregnancy has become too great a hazard for a woman to continue - and pregnancy is a hazard. It’s a blessing and a gift - but its also risky for any woman. ***

Here’s a good article on the history of abortion rulings by the Supreme Court so you don’t have to wade through all that legalize:
pewforum.org/Abortion/A-History-of-Key-Abortion-Rulings-of-the-US-Supreme-Court.aspx

Thanks for the reference. Much easier than reading the actual decisions. Note the bolded above. I don’t understand the reference. Even when abortion was restricted, the final decision rested with the doctor and his advice if there were a high risk pregnancy.

BTW the defense rested without calling Gosnell to the stand. In fact it sounds as if there were no defense witnesses at all. The defense appeared limited to trying to defang the prosecution’s case. He did succeed in getting a few charges tossed but the majority of them stand. I don’t think Gosnell will ever be free.

I do wish he had taken the stand if only to get an understanding of his thought process. I am starting to believe it was all about the money. He did not appear to provide charity care and by sticking to a niche market of late term abortions, cash only, he was able to run the practice quite inexpensively. (Medical billing is expensive requiring extensive software and trained personnel) It’s also clear that while he made a LOT of money, he did not spend it to maintain much less upgrade the practice. The woman who died due to an overdose of drugs had no weight listed as the scale had broken some time before. I mean how much does a simple scale cost? I truly think the man had lost his mind.

Lisa

 

[bellasbane]

That’s lovely, however if I were interested in knowing what post abortive and abortion clinic workers think about the pro life movement, I would ask them rather than a Catholic Cardinal. Yes he speaks for the Bishops but I suspect few Catholic Bishops worked in abortion clinics or have a lot of contact with post abortive women. Father Frank Pavone and other pro life, boots on the ground leaders probably have a lot more insight into the thought process of these women and how to best reach them.

BTW have you done any reading on the subject other than this one homily? All this week Women of Grace has featured an order of priests who focus on healing for postabortive women (and men). Abby Johnson’s book and Lila Rose are also very good sources for how to find and communicate with women considering abortion and those who have had abortions. Of course Fr Frank’s Priests for Life has done incredible work in the area.

I am not in any way discounting Cardinal Sean obviously, but you keep bringing up one homily as if this is the only word on the subject. There is a LOT of material out there…lots of pro life blogs and websites as weal as books on the truth about abortion.

Lisa

I read a lot and it’s great that you know about all those other sources, but Cardinal Seán is not some out of touch prelate and you are missing the point anyway.

It is not about what people inside the bubble feel and do. Its about what people outside the bubble feel and do. We want to expand the bubble, but something is pushing back. That something is ignorance and misunderstanding and part of it is our own doing and part of it is the doing of those on the outside who feel threatened by the pro-life movement. We need to get out of the bubble and confront these forces like Christians in order to dispel ignorance, clear up misunderstanding, and demonstrate that we are not at all threatening.

How often do you venture outside of the conservative blogosphere and actually have a respectful and sustained conversation with someone who doesn’t agree with most of what you believe? Try taking your knowledge of those wonderful resources to a more liberal place and do your best to spread the word without offending anyone.

 

[LisaA]

Science and technology are helping shift public opinion on abortion.
Tons of people posting their ultrasounds on Facebook pregnancy diaries.
Unborn babies have faces.

Yes I’ve always believed that education is the key to changing hearts and then minds. When I was a pro abort, it was because I didn’t understand fetal development…I bought the old “blob of tissue” argument. Once I realized how amazingly perfect the unborn baby was even in the first trimester when many think they are no different than the fetus of a rat, I changed my mind. I was not Catholic, not even Christian at the time. To me it was a human rights issue.

The pro aborts want this information kept secret and fight such requirements as offering the woman the opportunity to see an ultrasound of her baby or hear the heartbeat. They know once the baby is humanized, it will be far harder to kill him or her.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

I read a lot and it’s great that you know about all those other sources, but Cardinal Seán is not some out of touch prelate and you are missing the point anyway.

It is not about what people inside the bubble feel and do. Its about what people outside the bubble feel and do. We want to expand the bubble, but something is pushing back. That something is ignorance and misunderstanding and part of it is our own doing and part of it is the doing of those on the outside who feel threatened by the pro-life movement. We need to get out of the bubble and confront these forces like Christians in order to dispel ignorance, clear up misunderstanding, and demonstrate that we are not at all threatening.

How often do you venture outside of the conservative blogosphere and actually have a respectful and sustained conversation with someone who doesn’t agree with most of what you believe? Try taking your knowledge of those wonderful resources to a more liberal place and do your best to spread the word without offending anyone.

Well thank you for the suggestion. As to 'venturing outside of the conservative blogosphere…" I used to BE outside of the “conservative blogosphere” so please give me the courtesy of not assuming I am a narrow minded bigot with no exposure beyond listening to Rush Limbaugh.

I do take my knowledge to liberal places. I live in one of the most liberal places in the country. Land of fruits, nuts and flakes. People here are more concerned with the life of the chicken on their plate than an unborn child. As to having respectful and sustained conversations with those who don’t agree, I find PLENTY of them here on CAF. It stands to wonder how many self described Catholics would be more at home on Daily Kos than on CAF but that makes it so very interesting.

Lisa

 

[bellasbane]

Thanks for the reference. Much easier than reading the actual decisions. Note the bolded above. I don’t understand the reference. Even when abortion was restricted, the final decision rested with the doctor and his advice if there were a high risk pregnancy.

Was that true in all states? I know that before the Roe decision, it was a patchwork system - like marriage is today. There was no single standard for when abortions were or were not allowed. For example, Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey) could have gotten an abortion in another state, but she didn’t have the money to travel.

Today, people appear to want reassurance that abortion will remain legal in the case of rape, incest and the life and health of the mother. I don’t think they really consider how that would work on a practical level, but that seems to be the common consensus as I read it.

BTW the defense rested without calling Gosnell to the stand. In fact it sounds as if there were no defense witnesses at all. The defense appeared limited to trying to defang the prosecution’s case. He did succeed in getting a few charges tossed but the majority of them stand. I don’t think Gosnell will ever be free.

I do wish he had taken the stand if only to get an understanding of his thought process. I am starting to believe it was all about the money. He did not appear to provide charity care and by sticking to a niche market of late term abortions, cash only, he was able to run the practice quite inexpensively. (Medical billing is expensive requiring extensive software and trained personnel) It’s also clear that while he made a LOT of money, he did not spend it to maintain much less upgrade the practice. The woman who died due to an overdose of drugs had no weight listed as the scale had broken some time before. I mean how much does a simple scale cost? I truly think the man had lost his mind.

Lisa

Thanks for the update. Much easier than reading about the gruesome nightmare. I haven’t felt this heartsick since the Sandusky trial. It reminds me of serial killers like Jeffrey Dahmer. I don’t know what motivates people like that, but that’s how I think about Gosnell. He is a really evil & sadistic serial killer who found a way to get paid to victimize women and murder babies under the cover of legitimacy. I really do hope that people see how insane our laws are when they hear that his defense was that it couldn’t be murder because he killed the babies BEFORE they were born.

 

[bellasbane]

Well thank you for the suggestion. As to 'venturing outside of the conservative blogosphere…" I used to BE outside of the “conservative blogosphere” so please give me the courtesy of not assuming I am a narrow minded bigot with no exposure beyond listening to Rush Limbaugh.

I do take my knowledge to liberal places. I live in one of the most liberal places in the country. Land of fruits, nuts and flakes. People here are more concerned with the life of the chicken on their plate than an unborn child. As to having respectful and sustained conversations with those who don’t agree, I find PLENTY of them here on CAF. It stands to wonder how many self described Catholics would be more at home on Daily Kos than on CAF but that makes it so very interesting.

Lisa

I’m glad to hear that. I come to CAF for many of the same reasons. I have an account on Daily Kos, but I haven’t yet posted anything there. I do post on the Rachel Maddow blog and believe me it isn’t always a pretty conversation. My goal is to get Rachel Maddow to debate Cathleen Kaveny on the humanity of the unborn child. That would be fantastic!

Massachusetts is liberal, but in an old “Yankee Republican” rather than a “New Age” kind of way. It’s definitely not flaky.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Sometimes statistics are easier to interpret if they are all flipped in the same direction and ordered by magnitude. For example:

• 59% of Americans do not consider themselves to be “Pro-Choice”
• 51% consider abortion morally wrong
• 46% want abortion to be illegal
• 44% want abortion outlawed
• 30% support overturning Roe v Wade

The label “pro-choice” is politically loaded, which could account for why some people refuse to be labeled “pro-choice” even though they won’t go so far as saying abortion is morally wrong. I am going to go out on a limb and put that 8% into the “moral relativist” camp. That is, the kind of people who say they don’t believe in abortion for themselves, but think that is a personal decision, etc.

Averaging the next two (which really measure the same thing) gives us a solid 45% of people who want abortion to be outlawed or illegal. However, I would again guess that at least 15% do not favor an absolute ban on abortion, because…

Only 30% favor overturning Roe vs. Wade.

I don’t know how the different questions were asked, but that can change the results as well. For example, when people are asked whether they think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or always illegal the numbers break out differently, but the bottom line generally comes to about 25% of the population wanting to keep abortion legal in all circumstances.

Here’s a summary of the different polls:
pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

Getting back to the topic:

I would like to see whether this gruesome case has any influence on the numbers. The pro-life side is working hard to make people see the insanity of using a minor geographical distinction as the basis by which our legal system determines whether a action is a legal “medical procedure” or first degree homicide. But the abortion rights folks are working hard to spin it so that its about the need to make abortion safe and legal. They are trying, but I don’t think its working.

What poll is that? I can not find it on the list you supplied.

The poll does not recognize that the majority of self described pro choice people agree with many restrictions on abortion that self described pro lifers do, Gallup found that. Polls that say are you pro choice or do you think abortion should be legal are not revealing vital details. This poll is more detailed:

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ab2.jpg

media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ab2.jpg

hotair.com/archives/2013/04/12/reversal-in-wsjnbc-poll-majority-once-again-thinks-abortion-should-be-illegal-in-most-or-all-circumstances

 

[bellasbane]

What poll is that? I can not find it on the list you supplied.

I took the numbers from the previous post, adjusted the values so that higher values indicate greater support for the pro-life position, adjusted the labels to reflect this, and then ordered them by magnitude. This makes it easier to interpret the data.

I didn’t check the source of the original numbers, and have no idea whether they are valid or not, but checking now they appear to be from a Gallup poll:
gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx

Here are the original numbers and source:

• 41% of Americans call themselves “Pro-Choice”
• 51% consider abortion morally wrong
• 44% want abortion outlawed
• 54% want abortion to remain legal
• 70% oppose overturning Roe v Wade

From:
dailykos.com/story/2013/01/22/1181141/-New-poll-shows-that-yes-Americans-want-abortion-to-remain-legal-Still#