More Americans are Pro-life than Pro-choice.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Baby killers!

[rclouse 0]

Here's a good analysis of these recent polls.

Oh, and:

[JimandChristy 1,689]

Baby killers!

[GaryC 7]

Lawmakers Push Ultrasound Bills as More Americans Say They're Pro-Life

FOXNews.com

Monday, May 18, 2009

The number of Americans who consider themselves pro-life has climbed significantly -- a shift that some doctors and abortion opponents say may be due to advances in the use of ultrasound, which allows pregnant women to see images of their babies before they're born.

"Ultrasound used to be less available, very grainy. Now the baby is very clear, very distinct," said Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life.

"old ultrasound image"

"new ultrasound image"

A Gallup poll conducted May 7-10 found that a majority of Americans consider themselves "pro-life" for the first time since Gallup began polling the issue in 1995.

Fifty-one percent of those surveyed said they were pro-life, while 42 percent identified themselves as pro-choice -- a startling shift from just one year ago when 50 percent said they were pro-choice and 44 percent said they were pro-life.

The change, doctors say, may be directly linked to the frequency and improved quality of ultrasound -- a medical imaging technique that allows doctors to view the size, structure and vital organs of a fetus.

Massachusetts Dr. Eric J. Keroack told FOX News that during a two-year study 75 percent of his patients who were unsure about terminating a pregnancy decided not to have an abortion after they opted to view the ultrasound images.

Abortion opponents in legislatures across the nation are now lobbying for laws to require that women seeking an abortion view an ultrasound -- or at least have the option to do so -- in an effort to decrease the abortion rate.

Six states currently require verbal counseling or written materials to include information on accessing ultrasound services, and 12 states regulate the provision of ultrasound by abortion providers.

Legislation passed in Oklahoma last year requires abortion providers to perform an ultrasound on every woman seeking to terminate her pregnancy and to move the monitor into a position that makes it easy for women to see. The bill is being challenged by the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents abortion clinics.

Doctors must provide a "simultaneous description of what the ultrasound is depicting," which "shall include the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, the presence of cardiac activity, if present and viewable, and presence of external members and internal organs, if present and viewable," the legislation stipulates.

Women may avert their eyes if they choose to, the bill states, and "neither the physician nor the pregnant woman shall be subject to any penalty if she refuses to look at the presented ultrasound images."

In Nebraska, lawmakers advanced a measure last week requiring abortion providers to display ultrasound images of fetuses in a way that patients can easily view them. Lawmakers voted 37-5 Thursday to push the measure to the second round of debate.

"It gives young women who are struggling with that decision the option to view it and hopefully see a beating heart and the development of the child," Nebraska state Sen. John Harms told FOXNews.com.

"I've had correspondence with women who've gone through an abortion and who've said that if they had the option of seeing the ultrasound, they might not have made that decision," he said.

But abortion rights advocates are strongly opposed to such legislation, arguing that technology is being used to generate guilt among women who choose to abort.

"The other side has made it pretty clear that this is a strategy to get women to change their minds," Gretchen Borchelt, senior counsel at the National Women's Law Center, told FOXNews.com.

While Borchelt said she's not opposed to giving women the option of viewing an ultrasound, she's vehemently against requiring women to view the images.

"We do not support that type of legislation. That's interference," she said.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, also expressed opposition to a law that forces pregnant women to view an ultrasound. "Women would rather talk to their doctor about information they need to make private, personal medical decisions -- this is not a place for interference by politicians," she said.

"We do not oppose legislation that allows a woman the option to view an ultrasound that she has requested or that her doctor determines is medically necessary," Keenan said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/18...mber-abortions/

[Chamy and Gatita 3]

Note that I intentionally used quotation marks: To many, "abortion" of a 72-hour old blastomere to indicate that some consider this abortion but not all do. For those who believe that a human life exists at the very moment of conception when sperm implants egg, then there is an act of taking a human life as soon as anything is done to disrupt that fertilized egg from progressing to a normal pregnancy. That would include preventing the attachment of the zygote to the uterine wall. And hence to such people (though not me) the morning after pill constitutes taking of a human life, even if technically not abortion.

RE: above,

I understood you exactly (thanks to the quotes), i just threw that out there to pre-empt confusion on what the morning after pill does.

You're right about the nice tone in this thread! I was completely expecting to enter a Jerry Springer style mudfest!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Here's my stance. No one's personal religious beliefs should dictate the choices and options for others. If someone doesn't believe in abortion then they shouldn't have one. If someone considers it a form of BC, by all means have at 'er. Because in the end, the only one who has to live with the consequences is the person making the decision.

Someone has to die when the person has an abortion, so it's certainly not victimless and benign.

I'm anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. I see no contradiction in that. God forbids murder, but not killing, and there is a difference. Some people don't deserve to live among the decent, nor to be supported by them.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

"all of the increase in pro-life sentiment is seen among self-identified conservatives and moderates; the abortion views of political liberals have not changed."

end of story

which means who's open minded?

The flip flopping conservatives?

it sure isn't the dems who see no problem with killing an unborn yet raise cain about a killer being executed.

They raise heck about waterboarding, but it's ok to murder your baby.

[Peikko 1,575]

Here's my stance. No one's personal religious beliefs should dictate the choices and options for others. If someone doesn't believe in abortion then they shouldn't have one. If someone considers it a form of BC, by all means have at 'er. Because in the end, the only one who has to live with the consequences is the person making the decision.

Someone has to die when the person has an abortion, so it's certainly not victimless and benign.

I'm anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. I see no contradiction in that. God forbids murder, but not killing, and there is a difference. Some people don't deserve to live among the decent, nor to be supported by them.

Your god is such an inspiration to us all. It's nice to know that you know which side of the decency fence you belong. Logs and eyes.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Here's my stance. No one's personal religious beliefs should dictate the choices and options for others. If someone doesn't believe in abortion then they shouldn't have one. If someone considers it a form of BC, by all means have at 'er. Because in the end, the only one who has to live with the consequences is the person making the decision.

Someone has to die when the person has an abortion, so it's certainly not victimless and benign.

I'm anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. I see no contradiction in that. God forbids murder, but not killing, and there is a difference. Some people don't deserve to live among the decent, nor to be supported by them.

Your god is such an inspiration to us all. It's nice to know that you know which side of the decency fence you belong. Logs and eyes.

You're offended by my opinion, but not by baby killing. Do you even have a God?

[Peikko 1,575]

Offended? Hardly, it is however an opinion that is totally dependent on the idea that you have 'god's ear', that you are fit to judge what is and isn't right for all, something few of us presume upon. As to abortion you have no idea my opinion as to whether I would or would not choose that option for myself as I have never volunteered an opinion either way. I do however defend the right of all women to be able to choose for themselves if that is the right thing for them.

By the by, I didn't know I could own a god, where would I pick one up?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Offended? Hardly, it is however an opinion that is totally dependent on the idea that you have 'god's ear', that you are fit to judge what is and isn't right for all, something few of us presume upon. As to abortion you have no idea my opinion as to whether I would or would not choose that option for myself as I have never volunteered an opinion either way. I do however defend the right of all women to be able to choose for themselves if that is the right thing for them.

By the by, I didn't know I could own a god, where would I pick one up?

You twist what's written to suit your own purposes. But, then, I'm sure I'm not telling you something you don't already know.

[Peikko 1,575]

Coming from you, that has to be a compliment.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Coming from you, that has to be a compliment.

You'd like to think so.

BTW, you say you haven't stated your bias for or against abortion, but you have. That you fail to criticise those who are pro-choice, and/or coming from a secular perspective says it all. You need not say more.

[jundp 191]

But any way, many prolife people believe the unborn child has a RiGHT to Life just as any of us do and the reluctance of the mother to run up a hospital debt is meaningless to this principle.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, Danno.

I guess I think that rather than pinning this on the mother (reluctance to run up a hospital bill) we should put every effort into fixing the healthcare system so this isn't an issue.

Is that what you mean? That reluctance to run up a bill is not a valid reason to have an abortion? If so, then yes, I agree completely.

And I know very well there are those who believe death penalty is ok but abortion isn't. However, any way you slice it, murder is murder whether is sanctioned by the government or not. Thou shalt not kill. This bothers many people (*waves to Charles*) but I just don't see how you can put a qualifier out there on right-to-life.

What about euthanasia? Is that also acceptable in the eyes of God?

Note: I am not trying to be rude, but I am curious as to responses.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

If the STATS were like 20% and 80% then that is more interesting. However, if the stats are 51% and 42% it's like the same as saying 50-50 chance.

No actually it's a lot different. a lot of laws are passed with much narrower margins than this poll indicates.

In fact using your logic, obama was never elected because it wasn't 80/20.

I think the more interesting story line is; WHY the sudden move toward Pro-life?

I would be interested in any speculation as it baffles me.

It may have something to do with technology - that we can now see fetal development in the womb. Also, lower fertility in women who are waiting later to try to conceive. When you take life for granted, it's easy to discard. Perhaps fewer of us are taking life for granted, and more of us are becoming more altruistic and insightful as the population ages.