Reader Josh pointed me to this gallup poll that shows for the first time since they began polling this question in 1995, that more Americans are pro-life then pro-choice.
You may know from some of my posts that I am fairly libertarian on drugs, same-sex marriage, and some other views. But on abortion my conservative feelings run deep. So I am glad to see this trend changing, but I am highly curious as to what spurned it? I don’t remember this being a huge issue during the election, and certainly right now the focus of our country seems squarely on the economy.
I wonder if media can take some credit? There is certainly a difference between Cider House Rules and Knocked Up. And apparently we have had a 10-year decline in sexually active teens, that is now leveling off. I doubt that there is a religious bent to these changes, but rather some sort of secular-based change in the culture toward some more conservative-type views.
Very interested in your thoughts.
MARK ADDS:
A point I failed to see in the polling shows that this shift against abortion is all coming from the republican/conservative wing. Appears the chickens are coming home to roost (is that the expression?):
The source of the shift in abortion views is clear in the Gallup Values and Beliefs survey. The percentage of Republicans (including 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 and Democratic leaners.
Josh
Elijah
Greg
Michael
Mark
Dude Man
I’m pro-life too and I have a blog that I’ve posted on my views of abortion. I got some really interesting comments on it that you may want to look at; some for and against. It’s at http://twentyfiveyears.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/abortion/
It seems like it would be difficult to determine what exactly the folks responding to the poll were referring to. Do they mean “pro-life” in the traditional sense – that abortion should be made illegal? Or do they mean it in the more benign sense that abortion is terribly unpleasant? This seems to be the preferred way to talk about the issue, i.e., that no one will go on record saying they like the exercise of the choice, but that the choice should still be free to make. I would be surprised if it meant the former. I think people want to say they don’t like the practice, but I think there is too much brow-beating going on regarding anyone imposing moral choices through law.
But people’s attitude regarding abortion has been changing since its legalization. Instead, the focus is on the practice itself. That is, since abortion has been legal, the fight has been at exactly when an abortion becomes so violent and bloody and horrible that it can still be outlawed. The descriptions of tiny humans being mashed up and killed and sucked out is enough to make people tick whatever box is provided as an alternative to that sickening practice. They’re not really for that alternative. It’s just less repulsive.
Which leads to a dichotomy, Mark. Libertarianism is nice in theory, but in practice, you still have to contend with your humanity, which leads you to become sickened by certain behavior. So the question becomes, must one say, to hell with scruples? And to the extent libertarianism is a pure theory, that permits only laws that prevent one from picking my pocket or breaking my leg, does one cease to be libertarian with even one deviation?
(However, I should note that I do not think that abortion is not necessarily a problem for a libertarian so long as the fetus’s personhood is recognized.)
The gallup article linked to also shows results for people’s views on the legality of abortion, and that too has shifted with people now evenly split on whether it should always be legal, or always be illegal, but the majority are in the legal in certain circumstances camp. As to the charge against libertarianism, I am in agreement with you, which is why I am not a libertarian. I just happen to find myself drawn to their views and principles on certain topics more than republican views (or rather actions I should say).
Also, an interesting part of the poll I failed to mention is that this shift upward against abortion is all in the conservative groups. Self-identified liberals hold the same percentage of for/against with abortion as before. It is self-identified conservatives that are now saying they are against abortion.
What determines “fetus’s personhood” for a libertarian?
Student,
Though I am not a libertarian (some may consider me anti-libertarian), but most assuredly “personhood” is not a matter or political science, but philosophy and physical science. With that said, libertarians, just as communists or anarchists, could have a wide variety of views regarding “personhood.”
Since rights vest in “persons,” defining personhood is a legal/political/constitutional question. (The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says “no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”) You are correct to point out that communists, like libertarians, may have a different way of answering the question. Thus, in order to make the libertarian, or conservative, or communist answer to the question relevant to what the law should be in United States, one must demonstrate why U.S. law should reflect libertarian, or conservative, or communist ideology.
“Thus, in order to make the libertarian, or conservative, or communist answer to the question relevant to what the law should be in United States, one must demonstrate why U.S. law should reflect libertarian, or conservative, or communist ideology.”
Actually I said that there were not necessarily clearly defined ways a communist, libertarian, etc. would define personhood…
But glad you’re here to police what is “correct” and “incorrect.”
Elijah-
I believe Tim is talking about our constitution and the definition of personhood. You are right that people can have differing views (and Tim stated as much) but for matters of what “defines” personhood for American’s under the constitution Tim is pointing out that simply having differing views does not make them necessarily relevant to U.S. law, but that they must demonstrate applicability under our constitution.
You are right that “personhood” for your purposes is not a political science matter as far as morality is concerned. But if laws or the constitution are ever to be changed to match our moral purposes, then it does become a political science adventure.
I think it’s a bit off to accuse Tim of policing what is correct or incorrect here. It seems pretty clear to me that he is just defending a constitutional view here, and was laying out definitions for our discussion. I’ve had similar conversations with Tim before about gay marriage and have been struck by how important definitions are to laws (and lawyers like Tim) and I think there was nothing out of place or dogmatic about his comment that necessitated a reprimand.
I was speaking in generalities and I wanted to be a little feisty. A thousand apologies.
What are “our moral purposes” of the abortion issue?
This discussion was centering around a political and legal definition of “personhood”. Typically I abstain from trying to legislate my morality, but in this instance I would definitely desire for the political definition to match my moral position (pro-life)… which is not always the case. “Moral purposes” is a bit strange of a term, I was just trying to equate the idea of morality being a precursor for this specific political belief, when it usually is not.
Can the political personhood definition be biologically based?
Student,
The problem with giving a biological basis to personhood is that biology has nothing to say about the issue. Biology can tell you how many cells or neurons the fetus has, it can help us understand the functioning of the limbs and organs, etc. But it has nothing to say about what constitutes a person, because biology has nothing to do with “rights.” That is a philosophical/political/legal question.
Elijah,
I do not know what you mean when you say “most assuredly “personhood” is not a matter or political science, but philosophy and physical science.” As far as I can tell, I almost completely disagree — most assuredly, personhood is a matter of political science. It is also a matter of philosophy, as you said. But physical science seems to play exactly no role, other than supplying some information that might be helpful in the philosophical/political/legal analysis.
Just to throw my (two?) cents in, I think the ambiguity of “personhood” is a good indication of its unhelpfulness in the issue of abortion or end of life issues. The ethicist Stanley Hauerwas wrote an interesting article on this issue with the subtitle “My Uncle Charlie is Not Much of a Person, But He’s Still My Uncle Charlie.” For that matter, I’m not sure how helpful the term “rights” is either. One of the problem with “rights” is that it perceives the world as fundamentally hostile (people’s rights are in conflict and we must negotiate whose rights we should uphold). I’m not sure as a Christian who believes that the world is fundamentally ordered and peaceful (Gen 1) I can go along with this. Thus, I’m happy saying that no one has any rights. In fact, what’s a right? I’ve never seen one anyway. Instead of asking whether a certain fetus has “rights,” perhaps the question should be “what kind of people ought we be towards the unborn?” or “what kind of father/mother should we be?” These questions might only be answerable within a story (i.e. the Christian story) that gives them meaning…but I’m okay with that. Hopefully some of this makes sense.
It seems societal preference should influence the political views and arguably the legal analysis.
Is the philosophical thinking also subject to societal preferences?
If philosophical thinking is subject to societal preferences, then we have reached relativism and lost our touchstone. If we were to agree on that, it would be the last thing we would ever agree on that didn’t happen on account of pure coincidence.
Ryan — Rights are not antithetical to order. Quite the opposite. I think you are extrapolating the concept of order and peace too far. Yes, the world exhibits God’s order. But our own natures rebel against it, and we compete against others, and even against God. The comports nicely with Hobbes’s idea that life is nasty, poor, solitary, brutish, and short. Further evidence of the rights in the Bible is the commandment against stealing, the germ of the concept of Biblical property rights.
But even if you’re still not convinced, our founding documents are based on a philosophy of individual rights. There’s not a lot of chance shifting that entire bedrock without needing a new set of founding documents.
Tim,
I’m not sure where to go in this conversation because I think we disagree about quite a lot. For instance, quoting Hobbes (in my perspective) would be an easy way to subvert your argument, rather than substantiate it. I also find your evidence of rights in the Bible to be…wanting. Lastly, I’m not sure I understand the referent of the term “our” in your last paragraph…and I’m even less sure that I would be part of that group.
I’m not trying to be hostile or aggressive with these remarks, I’m just saying that I’m not sure where to go with it.
“Our” refers to the American founding documents. That was a sloppy assumption on my part.
Maybe I misunderstood your argument. You stated that “One of the problem with “rights” is that it perceives the world as fundamentally hostile (people’s rights are in conflict and we must negotiate whose rights we should uphold).” This is where Hobbes is applicable, since he viewed the state of nature — i.e., a society without rights — as fundamentally hostile. Thus, we need to have a system of rights to have order.
As to Exodus 20:15 (“Thou shalt not steal”), it would be meaningless to refer to stealing without presupposing the concept of sovereignty over property. Thus, Christian ethics presupposes property rights.
What kind of people should we be? Perhaps the sort that respects the rights of others and acknowledges our corresponding duties.
Is this “rights of others and acknowled[ging] our corresponding duties” fitting for the pregnant/prenatal distinction?