What ACB’s confirmation could mean for Roe v Wade

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dovekin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pro-choice and pro-life labels obscure nuance in views

Share of self-described “pro-choice” or “pro-life” Americans by when they think abortion should be legal

LEGALITY OF ABORTION
PRO-CHOICE PRO-LIFE OVERALL
Legal under any circumstances 55% 3% 29%
Legal in most circumstances 23 4 13
Legal in only a few circumstances 18 53 35
Illegal in all circumstances 3 38 20

Gallup survey conducted May 1-13, 2020. Respondents who answered “no opinion” or who said abortion should be legal under some circumstances but didn’t say if it should be under “most” or “only a few” circumstances are not shown.
Click to expand...
538@ is primarily about the analysis of data, numbers, polling. The core information is in this chart, which did not carry over as a chart.
MagdalenaRita said:
If Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court, though, all of this could change, and there would likely be more pressure from the conservative bloc to consider cases that could take restrictions on abortion rights well outside many Americans’ comfort zone.
Click to expand...
This repeats the data from the chart when it says “well outside many Americans’ comfort zone.” It may be phrased in a way you do not like, but it is basically just a fact. With another conservative on the court, more restrictive antiabortion laws will be reviewed, possibly favorably, than on a 5-4 court. It is an insight I think anyone can appreciate.
MagdalenaRita said:
[Americans] don’t like the idea of outright [abortion] bans, they don’t like the idea of criminalization, and they don’t like the idea of overturning Roe,”
Click to expand...
Do you doubt that this true? It is just an assertion of what polling has found.
MagdalenaRita said:
[recent state antiabortion laws] directly challenge the right to abortion in the early months of pregnancy that was established in Roe and reaffirmed in Casey,
Click to expand...
Again, this is a restatement of polling data. It sets up a brief discussion of how Supreme Court decisions will be received by Americans.

The article moves away from absolutized positions, to discussing the impact of decisions and their effects on people. There is much to be learned from the analysis. I see it as helpful to anyone who wants to understand the dynamics of the abortion debate that any Catholic should be able to learn from.
 
Dovekin said:
Do you doubt that this true? It is just an assertion of what polling has found.
Click to expand...
Yes I do have some doubts that it is true as I have learned not to trust polls.

Also even if it was true, a majority approving of something, does not make something right or good.
It just shows how far our society has fallen into evil and the moral crisis we are in
 
Last edited:
Dovekin said:
but it is basically just a fact.
Click to expand...
No, not at all. Paraphrased poll results are sloppy and inaccurate at best, and conjecture or projection at worst. This idea that Americans are all pro abortion is a well worn liberal talking point.
 
MikeInVA said:
This idea that Americans are all pro abortion is a well worn liberal talking point.
Click to expand...
Of course, on one is saying this. The data shown says 80% of Americans support abortion being legal in some circumstances. I know of no evidence that supports a radically different opinion, which is why liberals talk about polls, while conservatives talk about something else.

That leaves conservatives at a severe disadvantage. They are unable to discuss any policy since they reject any common ground with others when they reject science. They have already rejected faith as something others may share, ridiculing those who disagree with their sincere beliefs. There is not much left that can bring them into the discussion.
 
Ridgerunner said:
40.png
marybobo:
Did you feel the same when Dem nominees did the same.
Click to expand...
Since Democrat nominees are first vetted by NARAL, we already know what they would do at least regarding abortion.
Click to expand...
As Trump’s nominees have been vetted by the Federalist Society. We already know their position, though we do not know what any judge will do in any case that may come up, as ACB has spent this week saying
 
Dovekin said:
As Trump’s nominees have been vetted by the Federalist Society. We already know their position,
Click to expand...
NARAL is single-issue (pro abortion) Federalist Society is not single issue. It’s unlikely the Federalist Society would back a radical pro-abortion candidate, but not beyond the realm of possibility they would back a candidate who was “middle of the road” about it. No way NARAL would pass a prolife candidate.
 
Useless said:
Most likely it means we will get to laugh at the mental gymnastics the “conservatives” on the court perform to justify giving the same rulings they always have
Click to expand...
Wow. I guess you haven’t read rulings by activist justices… penumbrae and emanations indeed!
 
Dovekin said:
which is why liberals talk about polls,
Click to expand...
Poll questions can be written to achieve any desired result. I’d imagine that is the question was posed as, “Do you support the removal from the womb and killing of unborn children up until the point of natural childbirth?” would generate a much different result than say, “Do you support a woman’s choice in cases of rape or incest?” even in the same group of respondents, yet could be presented as having been the same basic question.
 
What you say is true, questions can be worded to elicit specific responses. The Gallup survey is easily available, linked to in the article I provided, if you want to object to any particular question.

They seem like normal questions to me, not designed to elicit any particular response.
 
But the article rolls up the responses and says that 80% are pro abortion when it is equally true that 80% are in favor of some limits on abortions.
 
MikeInVA said:
But the article rolls up the responses and says that 80% are pro abortion when it is equally true that 80% are in favor of some limits on abortions.
Click to expand...
Only when it is appropriate to do so. They have a fairly complete breakdown in the chart I cited, and parse the data in other ways. All in line wih what they say in their 4th paragraph:
Here’s an overview of how Americans feel about abortion (spoiler: It’s complicated!) and how Barrett’s presence on the court could lead to rulings on abortion that are more conservative than what most Americans want.
Click to expand...
 
So, in other words since, according to the article which I still doubt, 80% of Americans feel it is okay to kill children or at least kill them sometimes, Catholics should be opposed to the confirmation of ACB and vote in the upcoming election according to the poll numbers?
 
Last edited:
Dovekin said:
As Trump’s nominees have been vetted by the Federalist Society. We already know their position, though we do not know what any judge will do in any case that may come up, as ACB has spent this week saying
Click to expand...
True. It is also true that Democrat appointed justices tend to march in lockstep more than conservative judges.
 
Senate advises and consents. Remember who controlled the Senate.
 
JonNC said:
is also true that Democrat appointed justices tend to march in lockstep more than conservative judges.
Click to expand...
What if I were to tell you that one of the dissenting voices of Roe vs Wade was a JFK appointee and then we wouldn’t have another Dem appointed Justice for the next 25 years or so?
 
MagdalenaRita said:
So, in other words since, according to the article which I still doubt, 80% of Americans feel it is okay to kill children or at least kill them sometimes, Catholics should be opposed to the confirmation of ACB and vote in the upcoming election according to the poll numbers?
Click to expand...
The article is not that partisan, it is not asking anyone to vote one way or the other. It is looking at what a conservative vote on the Supreme Court will mean. Whether RvW is overturned or not, legislation to limit late term abortions is more likely to be reviewed and upheld than legislation because there is another conservative justice.

Some people when they read that will not want another conservative, others will want one. The language leans more towards those who do not want conservatives, but that is because conservative voices do not like to talk about this subject. The partisan choices are not really in the article.
 
Dovekin said:
It is looking at what a conservative vote on the Supreme Court will mean. …

The language leans more towards those who do not want conservatives,
Click to expand...
Yes that part was obvious.

As Catholics we need to obey the Church and Our Lord and remember that innocent lives are at stake and the salvation of our very own souls based on what we support, do not support or are involved in here.
 
ProVobis said:
40.png
JonNC:
is also true that Democrat appointed justices tend to march in lockstep more than conservative judges.
Click to expand...
What if I were to tell you that one of the dissenting voices of Roe vs Wade was a JFK appointee and then we wouldn’t have another Dem appointed Justice for the next 25 years or so?
Click to expand...
This is why I said they “tend” to vote lockstep.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top