May 15, 2009

More Americans pro-life than pro-choice

There is a good news for pro-life people: according to the new Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs survey, conducted May 7-10, 51% of Americans declare 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. The new results represent a significant shift from a year ago, when 50% were pro-choice and 44% pro-life.

The shift toward the pro-life position is confirmed in two other surveys, says Gallup:

The same three abortion questions asked on the Gallup Values and Beliefs survey were included in Gallup Poll Daily tracking from May 12-13, with nearly identical results, including a 50% to 43% pro-life versus pro-choice split on the self-identification question.
Additionally, a recent national survey by the Pew Research Center recorded an eight percentage-point decline since last August in those saying abortion should be legal in all or most cases, from 54% to 46%. The percentage saying abortion should be legal in only a few or no cases increased from 41% to 44% over the same period.

It’s also interesting that the percentage of Republicans (or independents who lean Republican) calling themselves pro-life rose by 10 points over the past year, from 60% to 70%, while there has been essentially no change in the views of Democrats (including Democratic leaners). Via All American Blogger.



Recommend this post on Google!


3 comments:

  1. It's a very good news, indeed!

    ReplyDelete
  2. At least they'll be spared the insane nonsense we see coming out of Sweden where people are having abortions based on gender.

    ReplyDelete
  3. According to the Guttmacher Institute, state and federal tax dollars paid $89M for 177,404 abortions in 2006.

    “Already this year tens of thousands of Americans have asked Congress to respect the consciences of taxpayers and stop the abortion bailout,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony List. “As Congress begins the new appropriations process, it would do well to heed the voices of constituents and stop the flow of taxpayer dollars to the abortion industry.”

    She added, “Common sense dictates one truism: we won’t find reductions in abortion as long as we continue to subsidize and promote it at taxpayers’ expense.”

    Talk about subsidizing: According to The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, teen childbearing cost taxpayers over $9.1B in 2004. From 1991-2004 costs are estimated to have been $161B.

    Children born to teens who haven't finished high school and not married are 9 times more likely to be poorer than those born to married high school graduates.

    Babies born to teens are at risk of low-birth weight and immediate health problems - mental retardation, blindness, deafness, and respiratory and intestinal problems.

    An example of the tax liability incurred with premature childbirth is Octomomma Nadya Suleman. Already receiving public funds of $490/month in food stamps and an estimated $793/month each in Social Security disability payments for three of the six existing children ($2,379 total), the eight children born in January cost California taxpayers another big bundle for her joys.

    Although the actual medical costs haven’t been disclosed, in 2006 the average cost for a California hospital stay was $164,273 per baby ($1.3M total) according to the Dept. of Health and Human Services.

    With all 14 children conceived via in-vitro fertilization, it seems Nadya has consistently played the Welfare game. California taxpayers aren’t very happy about it. “It's my opinion that a woman's right to reproduce should be limited to a number which the parents can pay for," Charles Murray wrote to the Los Angeles Daily News. "Why should my wife and I, as taxpayers, pay child support for 14 Suleman kids?” (Did he suggest cap and trade?)

    Indeed, Charles. If intent on preserving the life of unplanned, unwanted and unborn fetuses, anti-abortion groups, religious organizations and the charity of supportive citizens should bear the inherent financial burdens. The safety of the children would be better placed with who would guarantee proper diet, housing, clothing and an environment to ensure they grow up as productive members of society.

    If not for pro-lifers, fetuses will continue to be born into poverty, faced with malnutrition, sexual abuse and disadvantages in learning, putting them on paths that will most likely find their grandchildren in the same harrowing existences.

    According to 2001 stats from The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 40% pregnancies of whites were unplanned, 54% Hispanics and 69% blacks. We all know the conditions that await inner-city youths. Welcome to the real world, all you unwanted kids, thanks to anti-abortionists.

    Abstinence? Although we’re an intelligent lot, we’re still mammals with animal instincts inclined to satisfy rapture’s calling.

    Studies show men think about sex every 52 seconds; women perhaps once a day, suggesting it’s the woman’s choice to accept the risk of pregnancy.

    The average yearly cost incurred with each child born to a mother aged 17 and younger is $4,080 to the American taxpayer. In addition to the Standard Deduction, and no filing of Schedule A, at the very least I should be able to claim this as a charitable deduction on Form 1040.

    Perhaps the next poll should include the question, “On the issue of abortion, are you willing to provide $4,080, or more, in yearly taxes in support of making abortion illegal? Your answer is binding.”

    The follow-up question: “Keeping in mind that you cannot change your previous answer, do you consider yourself a member of the Moral Majority?”

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts with Thumbnails