PDA

View Full Version : Legal Gallup: 58% of conservatives & 69% of all Americans support gays in the military


jAZ
06-05-2009, 11:18 PM
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/poll-even-conservatives-are-in-favor-of-gays-in-the-military.php?ref=fpblg

Poll: Even Conservatives Are In Favor Of Gays In The Military
By Eric Kleefeld - June 5, 2009, 4:01PM

A new Gallup poll finds an overwhelming majority of Americans, 69%, in favor of allowing gays to serve openly in the military -- it's so big in fact, that even self-identified conservatives are for it.

The polling internals show 58% of conservatives in favor, plus 86% of liberals and 77% of moderates, for the overall top-line of 69%.

Back in 2004, 63% of Americans were in favor, with 83% of liberals, 72% of moderates, and 46% of conservatives.

This does invite an important question: Is a center-right country like the United States ready to have gays serving in the military?

patteeu
06-06-2009, 06:27 AM
I don't have any problem with it. The (decreasingly) sticky political problem is that the group who really, really opposes it with intensity is larger than the group that really, really supports it with intensity. And also, I'd suspect that a disproportionate number of those who oppose it are in the military.

Pioli Zombie
06-06-2009, 07:01 AM
This is such an important issue I'm too overwhelmed to comment on it.
Posted via Mobile Device

Saul Good
06-06-2009, 09:57 AM
Well, the majority of people are pro life, and the majority of people are against gay marriages. What's your point?

This country is run by the whims of a few. The idea that we are a democracy or even a democratic republic reached obsolescence a long time ago.

Cannibal
06-06-2009, 10:25 AM
Well, the majority of people are pro life, and the majority of people are against gay marriages. What's your point?

This country is run by the whims of a few. The idea that we are a democracy or even a democratic republic reached obsolescence a long time ago.

Yet 68% want Roe vs. Wade to remain.

mlyonsd
06-06-2009, 10:31 AM
I'll side whichever way the military command wants to go.

jAZ
06-06-2009, 10:39 AM
Well, the majority of people are pro life, and the majority of people are against gay marriages. What's your point?
That's not true.

The the majority of the public consistantly identifies as "pro-choice" (by a varyingly narrow margin) and further, only about 20% of American's want to ban abortion completely.

25% want unrestricted access to it. The rest (about 55%) support it in some circumstances, but with restrictions.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27628/public-divided-prochoice-vs-prolife-abortion-labels.aspx

patteeu
06-06-2009, 11:27 AM
That's not true.

The the majority of the public consistantly identifies as "pro-choice" (by a varyingly narrow margin) and further, only about 20% of American's want to ban abortion completely.

25% want unrestricted access to it. The rest (about 55%) support it in some circumstances, but with restrictions.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27628/public-divided-prochoice-vs-prolife-abortion-labels.aspx

You're behind the times. Gallup recently found (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx) that more Americans identify as pro-life for the first time.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/qgpmcs1jxuwo2l6achm_cg.gif

jAZ
06-06-2009, 11:51 AM
You're behind the times. Gallup recently found (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx) that more Americans identify as pro-life for the first time.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/qgpmcs1jxuwo2l6achm_cg.gif
Interesting. I stand corrected. I'd be curious to see the policy particulars that were in my link updated for today.

jAZ
06-06-2009, 11:55 AM
Interesting. I stand corrected. I'd be curious to see the policy particulars that were in my link updated for today.

It was at your link...

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/qg8phio020orbfpcihagma.gif

Still only 23% want it completely banned (the pro-life movement's position).

Saul Good
06-06-2009, 12:03 PM
It was at your link...

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/qg8phio020orbfpcihagma.gif

Still only 23% want it completely banned (the pro-life movement's position).

That's doubled since 1996.

And 72% want it completely banned or only legal under certain circumstances.

Less than 1 in 4 want it legal under any circumstances. That's down from 34 percent in 1996.

It looks to me like a long-term trend has developed.

jAZ
06-06-2009, 12:20 PM
That's doubled since 1996.

And 72% want it completely banned or only legal under certain circumstances.

Less than 1 in 4 want it legal under any circumstances. That's down from 34 percent in 1996.

It looks to me like a long-term trend has developed.

The trend is to legal with some restrictions.

Mojo Jojo
06-06-2009, 12:24 PM
It was at your link...

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/qg8phio020orbfpcihagma.gif

Still only 23% want it completely banned (the pro-life movement's position).

Yes and the Pro-Choice Movement want it up until the actual "full birth". On demand (you can get a hernia operation done on demand) and no parental notification for those under 18 or 16 whatever is legal adult in that state for medical decisions.

The point is most Americans stand somewhere between complete outlawing of abortion and abortion on demand at any part of the pregnancy until full birth. The problem is both parties power and money come from the extreme ends.

BigRedChief
06-07-2009, 08:52 AM
Gays should be openly allowed to serve their country. We are in 2 wars, who knows whats going to happen in North Korea and Iran?

The same argument against gays openly serving is the same agruments that were used to prevent women and blacks from serving alongside males and white americans.

We need to grow the fu%^ up and get over this homophobia. We can't afford to have 10% of the population of the USA not elgible to serve their country in a time of war.

stevieray
06-07-2009, 10:28 AM
The same argument against gays openly serving is the same agruments that were used to prevent women and blacks from serving alongside males and white americans.

you live in a world wihere you concetrate on the adjectives too much, IMO.

did you know that the military was intergrated until the stroke of the pen by Woodrow Wilson?

I really dislike that guy.

Mojo Jojo
06-08-2009, 10:44 AM
The Supreme Court just rejected a "Don't Ask Don't Tell" appeal. The Obama Admin. had asked the court to dismiss the appeal, and that goes against yet another BHO campaign promise. If BHO took the Facebook quiz "Which 80's Movie Are You?" I'm sure the answer would be "Say Anything."

jAZ
06-08-2009, 11:28 AM
The Supreme Court just rejected a "Don't Ask Don't Tell" appeal. The Obama Admin. had asked the court to dismiss the appeal, and that goes against yet another BHO campaign promise. If BHO took the Facebook quiz "Which 80's Movie Are You?" I'm sure the answer would be "Say Anything."

Does this ever get old?

I want the policy gone, but he never said it would happen day 1.

Clinton made the mistake of opening this can of worms too early. Obama is learning from history.

Even Fox News has a better understanding than you, it seems.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479952,00.html

Obama to End Military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy
Wednesday, January 14, 2009 | FoxNews.com


WASHINGTON President-elect Barack Obama will allow gays to serve openly in the military by overturning the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy that marred President Clinton's first days in office, according to incoming White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

The startling pronouncement, which could re-open a dormant battle in the culture wars and distract from other elements of Obama's agenda, came during a Gibbs exchange with members of the public who sent in questions that were answered on YouTube.

"Thadeus of Lansing, Mich., asks, 'Is the new administration going to get rid of the "don't ask, don't tell policy?'" said Gibbs, looking into the camera. "Thadeus, you don't hear a politician give a one-word answer much. But it's, 'Yes.'"

The Obama transition team declined to elaborate on that one-word answer when asked by FOX News on Wednesday about a timetable for repealing the policy, which was enacted by Clinton after a protracted public debate. Obama officials also would not explain which lawmakers or Pentagon officials would attempt to repeal "don't ask, don't tell."

Clinton, who initially sought to overturn the longstanding ban on gays in the military, ended up enacting the "don't ask, don't tell" policy as a compromise that made it illegal for commanders to ask about the sexual orientation of service members, who were also barred from announcing they were homosexual. If a service member's homosexuality becomes known anyway, he or she is expelled.

Clinton is widely viewed as having stumbled during his first days in office by getting caught up in the raging controversy, which detracted from the rest of his agenda. It is not yet clear whether Obama would face a similar debacle.

For years, Obama has said he generally opposes the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Last summer, he told a gay magazine he can "reasonably" see it being repealed. But that was a far cry from Gibbs' unequivocal promise that the policy will indeed be ended.

The gay community is eager for a quick repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," but fears it could be months before the new administration reaches a consensus with lawmakers and the military. Others think Obama could do it quickly, but is leery of the kind of fallout Bill Clinton faced when he tackled the divisive issue.

FOX News' Carl Cameron contributed to this report.

Mojo Jojo
06-08-2009, 12:08 PM
Does this ever get old?

I want the policy gone, but he never said it would happen day 1.

Clinton made the mistake of opening this can of worms too early. Obama is learning from history.

Even Fox News has a better understanding than you, it seems.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479952,00.html

Obama to End Military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy
Wednesday, January 14, 2009 | FoxNews.com


WASHINGTON President-elect Barack Obama will allow gays to serve openly in the military by overturning the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy that marred President Clinton's first days in office, according to incoming White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

The startling pronouncement, which could re-open a dormant battle in the culture wars and distract from other elements of Obama's agenda, came during a Gibbs exchange with members of the public who sent in questions that were answered on YouTube.

"Thadeus of Lansing, Mich., asks, 'Is the new administration going to get rid of the "don't ask, don't tell policy?'" said Gibbs, looking into the camera. "Thadeus, you don't hear a politician give a one-word answer much. But it's, 'Yes.'"

The Obama transition team declined to elaborate on that one-word answer when asked by FOX News on Wednesday about a timetable for repealing the policy, which was enacted by Clinton after a protracted public debate. Obama officials also would not explain which lawmakers or Pentagon officials would attempt to repeal "don't ask, don't tell."

Clinton, who initially sought to overturn the longstanding ban on gays in the military, ended up enacting the "don't ask, don't tell" policy as a compromise that made it illegal for commanders to ask about the sexual orientation of service members, who were also barred from announcing they were homosexual. If a service member's homosexuality becomes known anyway, he or she is expelled.

Clinton is widely viewed as having stumbled during his first days in office by getting caught up in the raging controversy, which detracted from the rest of his agenda. It is not yet clear whether Obama would face a similar debacle.

For years, Obama has said he generally opposes the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Last summer, he told a gay magazine he can "reasonably" see it being repealed. But that was a far cry from Gibbs' unequivocal promise that the policy will indeed be ended.

The gay community is eager for a quick repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," but fears it could be months before the new administration reaches a consensus with lawmakers and the military. Others think Obama could do it quickly, but is leery of the kind of fallout Bill Clinton faced when he tackled the divisive issue.

FOX News' Carl Cameron contributed to this report.

jAZ...posting an article that is almost 5 months old. A little low even for you. Here is the report from CNN today...much more recent.

"The Obama administration had asked the high court not to take the case, and White House officials had said they would not object to homosexuals being kicked out of the armed services."

The second half of that statement goes against BHO's campaign stance. The White House could have chose to not take a stance in front of the court.

irishjayhawk
06-08-2009, 12:12 PM
You're behind the times. Gallup recently found (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx) that more Americans identify as pro-life for the first time.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/qgpmcs1jxuwo2l6achm_cg.gif

My take is this: Many people are identifying as pro-life more because the pro-life PR campaign has been successful even if it's downright misleading at best and dangerous propaganda at worst.

When it comes to policy decisions though, I think Jaz's take is still accurate. Abortion bills routinely get swatted down in public votes.

jAZ
06-08-2009, 12:31 PM
jAZ...posting an article that is almost 5 months old. A little low even for you. Here is the report from CNN today...much more recent.

"The Obama administration had asked the high court not to take the case, and White House officials had said they would not object to homosexuals being kicked out of the armed services."

The second half of that statement goes against BHO's campaign stance. The White House could have chose to not take a stance in front of the court.

Taking no stance at the moment risks the issue blowing up (if the USSC forces the issue) today, rather than on their schedule.

This was outlined in the article from 5 months ago, and nothing has changed since.

That they don't want the politics of this issue to blow up other elements of their agenda doesn't mean that it's not an issue that will be addressed 1 year from now or before his 1st term is over.

Any assertion that Obama has failed to meet a campaign promise, can't be accurately made until he's no longer in position to deliver on the promise.

And to be clear, if the Fox News story is complete and accurate, it would appear to not technically have been a campaign pledge, but a post-election pledge.

KC native
06-08-2009, 03:41 PM
My take is this: Many people are identifying as pro-life more because the pro-life PR campaign has been successful even if it's downright misleading at best and dangerous propaganda at worst.

When it comes to policy decisions though, I think Jaz's take is still accurate. Abortion bills routinely get swatted down in public votes.

Not directing my quote at you but your post is along the lines of what I wanted to point out (and I don't feel like going to page 1 and doing a multiquote) As usual when it comes to these types of polls the reporting is biased.

Nate Silver is awesome. Just read his post on it EDIT Damn graphs won't come through so go to the source so you can see them because it makes his argument clear


http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/is-public-opinion-changing-on-abortion.html

Is Public Opinion Changing on Abortion?
by Nate Silver @ 12:39 PM
Bookmark and Share Share This Content

A new survey from Pew Research which suggests that a declining number of Americans support the option of abortion in all or most cases is receiving a fair amount of attention. But is there actually any evidence that public sentiments on abortion are changing?

In my opinion, probably not -- and if there is change in public opinion, it is occurring very slowly. The chart below is populated with data from PollingReport.com and incorporates data from eight organizations -- ABC/Washington Post, Quinnipiac, Pew, LA Times/Bloomberg, AP/Ipsos, CBS, NBC/WSJ and CNN -- that ask respondents a four-option question about abortion, where they are given a choice between saying abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in all cases, or illegal in most cases. We then draw a linear trendline through the individual datapoints.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SgxClNgVgJI/AAAAAAAABI8/wRBA64eFLOs/s1600-h/abort2.PNG

Although two recent surveys -- the Pew poll conducted last month and an NBC/WSJ poll conducted in September -- indicated smaller-than-usual margins for the legal option, this is countered by a large amount of data from earlier in 2008 which indicated support for legal abortion at about its typical levels in the mid-50's. While it's possible that public opinion has shifted more dramatically on this issue since sometime late last year, it seems highly unlikely. Polls don't move without reasons, and abortion hasn't been particularly in the news of late. Who knows -- maybe Baby Trig won over a few hearts and minds -- but odds are the Pew result is a mild outlier. Since the abortion choice question is surveyed quite frequently, we will know soon enough.

As far as a longer-term trend goes, you can arguably perceive a slight one in favor of those saying abortion should be illegal. On the other hand, if we look at a different type of survey question -- those asking the respondent to identify as pro-choice or pro-life -- we do not perceive any such pattern:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SgxpillowbitergVvUI/AAAAAAAABJM/D1BK_FsqxEw/s1600-h/abort1.PNG


Or, if you like, we can combine the two types of surveys onto one graph:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SgxGPRJDkkI/AAAAAAAABJU/PLg8MrfU3V4/s1600-h/abort3.PNG

There's just no trend at all there, except maybe toward slightly more people having an opinion, one way or the other, about the abortion choice question.

In fact, the remarkable thing about abortion is precisely how steady public opinion has been on it for many, many years. Perhaps this in and of itself is interesting -- as Ross Douthat pointed out, there is some decent evidence that Gen Y'ers are less inclined to take the pro-choice position than Gen X'ers or Baby Boomers -- although they are still more pro-choice than the voters they are gradually replacing in the voting pool, which are members of the Silent Generation. This is in spite of the fact that young Americans are considerably more liberal than their peers on issues like gay marriage and marijuana legalization, issues on which there is more tangible evidence of "momentum" in favor of the liberal position. There are evidently an increasing number of pro-life, pro-gay marriage Americans, particularly among Generation Yers, a position it would have been very unusual to encounter just a few years ago.

Saul Good
06-08-2009, 04:01 PM
The trend is to legal with some restrictions.

That's like saying that the unemployment trend is to 9.4%. It's just not accurate because the rate is currently at 9.4% and trending higher.

Legal with some restrictions is where we are right now in terms of public sentiment. The trend is towards something decidedly more pro-life.

Cannibal
06-08-2009, 07:44 PM
My take is this: Many people are identifying as pro-life more because the pro-life PR campaign has been successful even if it's downright misleading at best and dangerous propaganda at worst.

When it comes to policy decisions though, I think Jaz's take is still accurate. Abortion bills routinely get swatted down in public votes.

68% still do not want Roe v. Wade overturned though. Despite that poll showing a small majority stating they are pro-life.

Saul Good
06-08-2009, 07:50 PM
68% still do not want Roe v. Wade overturned though. Despite that poll showing a small majority stating they are pro-life.

That's because most people think that overturning it would make abortion illegal.

patteeu
06-08-2009, 08:01 PM
My take is this: Many people are identifying as pro-life more because the pro-life PR campaign has been successful even if it's downright misleading at best and dangerous propaganda at worst.

When it comes to policy decisions though, I think Jaz's take is still accurate. Abortion bills routinely get swatted down in public votes.

No they don't. It depends on what the specifics are. If we're talking about a complete ban on abortion, it's likely to lose. If we're talking about a ban on an extreme late term version of abortion or a less than complete limitation, it's more likely to pass, which (I agree) is what jAZ said in post 12. My quarrel with your characterization is that you seem to want to box the "pro life" position into the complete ban corner while treating anything short of that as pro-choice.

jAZ
06-08-2009, 08:13 PM
That's like saying that the unemployment trend is to 9.4%. It's just not accurate because the rate is currently at 9.4% and trending higher.

Legal with some restrictions is where we are right now in terms of public sentiment. The trend is towards something decidedly more pro-life.

Yes, and legal with some restrictions is where we will be 25 years from now.

jAZ
06-08-2009, 08:15 PM
My quarrel with your characterization is that you seem to want to box the "pro life" position into the complete ban corner while treating anything short of that as pro-choice.
The "pro life" movement's position is "complete ban". There are a lot of people that are for restrictions. They are "pro choice" with varying degrees of restrictions.

patteeu
06-08-2009, 08:50 PM
The "pro life" movement's position is "complete ban". There are a lot of people that are for restrictions. They are "pro choice" with varying degrees of restrictions.

And the "pro-choice" movement's position is "abortion on demand". We're talking about more than just the extreme activists on either side here though. You've already dug into the poll I posted and showed that more people identify as "pro life" than support a complete ban by a fairly large margin.

Saul Good
06-08-2009, 08:55 PM
Yes, and legal with some restrictions is where we will be 25 years from now.

That's probably true, but I would wager that we will be closer to only in extreme cases than to abortion on demand under any circumstances.

As medical technology improves, the term "viable" does as well. I am guessing that the strong majority opposes abortion of viable fetuses unless there are extreme health issues involved.

irishjayhawk
06-08-2009, 09:15 PM
68% still do not want Roe v. Wade overturned though. Despite that poll showing a small majority stating they are pro-life.

That was more or less one of the things that comes as a side-effect of my take.

No they don't. It depends on what the specifics are. If we're talking about a complete ban on abortion, it's likely to lose. If we're talking about a ban on an extreme late term version of abortion or a less than complete limitation, it's more likely to pass, which (I agree) is what jAZ said in post 12. My quarrel with your characterization is that you seem to want to box the "pro life" position into the complete ban corner while treating anything short of that as pro-choice.

Umm, the pro-life movement means outlawing abortion, period. As Jaz said it is an all or nothing stance. Hence, why it's "pro-LIFE".

Having said that, I do acknowledge the existence of pro-life people who are for women's choice, which may be the subset of people you're talking about. I would be one of them (sort of). That is, people who are for the non-dictation of morality by one side but find abortion itself immoral.

And the "pro-choice" movement's position is "abortion on demand". We're talking about more than just the extreme activists on either side here though. You've already dug into the poll I posted and showed that more people identify as "pro life" than support a complete ban by a fairly large margin.

No, it is not. And that's the exact kind of propaganda I noted. Their stance is that it shouldn't be outlawed - people should have the choice. It isn't about having abortion on demand. You've pretty much articulated their whole PR movement which is pro-choice = pro-abortion. Or "abortion on demand". Perhaps you didn't intend to.

jAZ
06-08-2009, 09:38 PM
That's probably true, but I would wager that we will be closer to only in extreme cases than to abortion on demand under any circumstances.

As medical technology improves, the term "viable" does as well. I am guessing that the strong majority opposes abortion of viable fetuses unless there are extreme health issues involved.

I hope so. I also hope that we improve education to the point where we minimize the number of unwanted pregnancies.

***SPRAYER
06-08-2009, 10:09 PM
Brainwashing small children into accepting this freak's viewpoint is what Obamunists had in mind when they promised their two-bit messiah would unite us.



http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/06/obama_picks_mil.html

jAZ
06-08-2009, 10:26 PM
Brainwashing small children into accepting this freak's viewpoint is what...
Sounds like most Christian religions to me, except we aren't allowed to call them "freaks" without causing a shit-storm.

jAZ
06-08-2009, 10:28 PM
Sounds like most Christian religions to me, except we aren't allowed to call them "freaks" without causing a shit-storm.

Or Ronald Reagan.

jAZ
06-08-2009, 10:28 PM
Or Ronald Reagan.

Or George W. Bush circa every year before 2006.

jAZ
06-08-2009, 10:29 PM
Or George W. Bush circa every year before 2006.

Or Dick Cheney if you are patteeu.

patteeu
06-09-2009, 05:52 AM
That was more or less one of the things that comes as a side-effect of my take.



Umm, the pro-life movement means outlawing abortion, period. As Jaz said it is an all or nothing stance. Hence, why it's "pro-LIFE".

Having said that, I do acknowledge the existence of pro-life people who are for women's choice, which may be the subset of people you're talking about. I would be one of them (sort of). That is, people who are for the non-dictation of morality by one side but find abortion itself immoral.



No, it is not. And that's the exact kind of propaganda I noted. Their stance is that it shouldn't be outlawed - people should have the choice. It isn't about having abortion on demand. You've pretty much articulated their whole PR movement which is pro-choice = pro-abortion. Or "abortion on demand". Perhaps you didn't intend to.

The activist groups on both sides are at the extreme ends of the spectrum. You're failing to distinguish between the "movement" on the pro-life side and pro-lifers in general (who frequently seem to be willing to make exceptions in the cases of rape and incest or want the matter decided on a state-by-state basis, for example), while feeling free to distinguish between the extreme pro-choice "movement" and regular people who are semi-pro choice like yourself.

patteeu
06-09-2009, 05:54 AM
Or Ronald Reagan.

Or George W. Bush circa every year before 2006.

Or Dick Cheney if you are patteeu.

I don't get it.

irishjayhawk
06-09-2009, 09:19 AM
The activist groups on both sides are at the extreme ends of the spectrum. You're failing to distinguish between the "movement" on the pro-life side and pro-lifers in general (who frequently seem to be willing to make exceptions in the cases of rape and incest or want the matter decided on a state-by-state basis, for example), while feeling free to distinguish between the extreme pro-choice "movement" and regular people who are semi-pro choice like yourself.

I fully understand the pro-lifers who make exceptions. As I said, I'm probably closer to that side of the spectrum.

However, your mistake is with the extreme pro-choice "movement". You, once again, seem to insinuate that those people are pro-abortion. If there are those people, I surely haven't seen or heard of them. There are extreme pro-choicers who think that a woman should have a choice regardless of trimester. But that's hardly pro-abortion.

Mojo Jojo
06-09-2009, 09:38 AM
It is clear that the abortion tide shifted in the 80's when abortion became an everyday birth control method. It was no big deal for people of all ages to have unprotected sex and if you got pregnant you just went down to a clinic and had it taken care of. If you could not afford it and didn't want to tell your parents then the Gov. would pick up part of the tab. I have two female friends that between high school and college had enough abortions that they never were able to carry a pregnancy full term once they wanted to have kids.

I understand that there are reasons to have an abortion, but as a form of Gov. funded birth control it is a joke. People need to be responsible for their actions and not look for the easy way out.

Mojo Jojo
06-09-2009, 10:00 AM
Taking no stance at the moment risks the issue blowing up (if the USSC forces the issue) today, rather than on their schedule.

This was outlined in the article from 5 months ago, and nothing has changed since.

That they don't want the politics of this issue to blow up other elements of their agenda doesn't mean that it's not an issue that will be addressed 1 year from now or before his 1st term is over.

Any assertion that Obama has failed to meet a campaign promise, can't be accurately made until he's no longer in position to deliver on the promise.

And to be clear, if the Fox News story is complete and accurate, it would appear to not technically have been a campaign pledge, but a post-election pledge.

I may stand corrected on campaign vs. just elected promise, but if you check with your friends at Dailykos and Democratic Underground they are VERY upset at BHO and his current stance. They see it as I do...he had a chance to step up for the people who supported him and he failed again. In 7 months since being elected the gay community, a very strong BHO support group early on, has been slapped 3 times now.

Hey, jAZ by your post you claim that justice delivered late is still justice delivered. I don't think that is a very "progressive" attitude. Also, that is not change we can count on.

patteeu
06-09-2009, 12:59 PM
I fully understand the pro-lifers who make exceptions. As I said, I'm probably closer to that side of the spectrum.

However, your mistake is with the extreme pro-choice "movement". You, once again, seem to insinuate that those people are pro-abortion. If there are those people, I surely haven't seen or heard of them. There are extreme pro-choicers who think that a woman should have a choice regardless of trimester. But that's hardly pro-abortion.

I'm not the one who started talking about pro-abortion, you are. Abortion on demand means what you are calling "choice regardless of trimester" + without meaningful restrictions.

irishjayhawk
06-09-2009, 03:13 PM
I'm not the one who started talking about pro-abortion, you are. Abortion on demand means what you are calling "choice regardless of trimester" + without meaningful restrictions.

Which is, in effect, pro-abortion. Just because you try to call it something different doesn't mean it isn't the same.

patteeu
06-09-2009, 03:26 PM
Which is, in effect, pro-abortion. Just because you try to call it something different doesn't mean it isn't the same.

If you want to call it pro-abortion, I'm OK with that, but what I described is what the pro-choice movement is about. Individual pro-choicers may differ just as individual pro-lifers differ with their movement, but the pro-choice movement is every bit as extreme as the pro-life movement.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-09-2009, 03:29 PM
but the pro-choice movement is every bit as extreme as the pro-life movement.

Except worse, which side has taken more lives?

patteeu
06-09-2009, 03:49 PM
Except worse, which side has taken more lives?

Good point. If the pro-choicers are right about when life starts (i.e. sometime after birth), all they'd lose with a ban on abortion is a few months of party time and a few job opportunities. If the pro-lifers are right (i.e. conception), we've got a holocaust on our hands.

Saul Good
06-09-2009, 04:02 PM
You, once again, seem to insinuate that those people are pro-abortion. If there are those people, I surely haven't seen or heard of them.

I'm not the one who started talking about pro-abortion, you are. Abortion on demand means what you are calling "choice regardless of trimester" + without meaningful restrictions.

Which is, in effect, pro-abortion. Just because you try to call it something different doesn't mean it isn't the same.

Are you arguing with yourself?

In consecutive posts, you say that you haven't seen or heard of someone who is pro-abortion. Then, you tell Patteau that someone who believes in abortion on demand is the same thing as being pro-abortion.

Which is it?

irishjayhawk
06-09-2009, 05:14 PM
Are you arguing with yourself?

In consecutive posts, you say that you haven't seen or heard of someone who is pro-abortion. Then, you tell Patteau that someone who believes in abortion on demand is the same thing as being pro-abortion.

Which is it?

Abortion on demand is pro-abortion. The stance, anyway. And no, I still haven't seen anyone advocate those beliefs.

I think pat and I agree more than we disagree on this issue, but I still haven't seen what patteeu describes as the extremist version of pro-choicers.

|Zach|
06-09-2009, 05:21 PM
Listening to NPR this afternoon as I was out and about and this poll was mentioned. An interesting point about this poll through time was brought up that if you look at this poll within through history you will see that it is cyclical in opposition to who is in the White House\Congress. So a generally pro life President+Congress gets the pro choice movement revved up and now you are seeing the opposite of that.