• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

40 Years Later, Majority Opposes Overturning Roe v. Wade

abortion-law

In less than a week we will reach the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, which established that women have the right to seek an abortion.  That decision set off a political and legal firestorm that continues to this day, In it’s wake came a series of subsequent Supreme Court decisions as state’s attempted to find ways to use regulations of one kind or another to restrict patient’s access to abortion. For the most part, the Supreme Court has held true to the basic standard established in Roe even as the political debate on the far right has become more and more strident in its opposition to abortion. In recent years, we’ve seen the “right to life” crowd attempt to restrict abortion rights by imposing ever more egregious regulations on the practice of medicine by doctors who perform abortions, as well as attempts to pass absurd “Personhood Amendments” that would effectively make most forms of In-Vitro Fertilization illegal. Even after four decades, though, polling indicates that a majority of Americans continue to support the basic holding that the Supreme Court reached in Roe v. Wade:

As the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision approaches, the public remains opposed to completely overturning the historic ruling on abortion. More than six-in-ten (63%) say they would not like to see the court completely overturn the Roe v. Wade decision, which established a woman’s constitutional right to abortion at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Only about three-in-ten (29%) would like to see the ruling overturned. These opinions are little changed from surveys conducted 10 and 20 years ago.

Decades after the Supreme Court rendered its decision, on Jan. 22, 1973, most Americans (62%) know that Roe v. Wade dealt with abortion rather than school desegregation or some other issue. But the rest either guess incorrectly (17%) or do not know what the case was about (20%). And there are substantial age differences in awareness: Among those ages 50 to 64, 74% know that Roe v. Wade dealt with abortion, the highest percentage of any age group. Among those younger than 30, just 44% know this.

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Jan. 9-13 among 1,502 adults, finds that abortion is viewed as a less important issue than in the past. Currently, 53% say abortion “is not that important compared to other issues,” up from 48% in 2009 and 32% in 2006. The percentage viewing abortion as a “critical issue facing the country” fell from 28% in 2006 to 15% in 2009 and now stands at 18%.

This leads to interesting conclusions.

First of all, it’s fairly obvious that the vast majority of Americans do not consider abortion as a serious issues impacting the country. I would submit that, for the most part, this is  bad news for the anti-abortion crowd in that it suggests that most Americans don’t consider changing the status quo on abortion law in the United States to be a very high priority.  I’d also suggest that, notwithstanding recent efforts by pro-life Republicans in states like Oklahoma and Kansas, the actual support for limiting abortion rights is really quite limited. Indeed, it’s worth noting that abortion has not been an issue in a national election for the past 30 years or so, and that we’ve just come off a national election in which the Republican position on reproductive rights was soundly rejected. This tells me that the actual political odds for significant restrictions on abortion rights is really quite minimal.

Secondly, I would suggest that, as with same-sex marriage, Republicans need to realize that, in the end, they are on the losing side of yet another cultural issue. Perhaps strident opposition to abortion will continue to be politically advantageous in the solid red states for some time to come but, in the end, the fact that Roe has stood as good law for 40 years now, and that there’s now chance it will overturned anytime in the near future, suggests that this is a losing political issue in the long run.

I seldom write about abortion largely because it is such a contentious political issue. However, it seems eminently clear to me that Roe established a political regime from which there is no turning back. Women have the right to control their bodies. And, personally., I consider that a good thing.

Related Posts:

About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway. Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. michael reynolds says:

    Yes, we won on this, too. At least in the broad scheme, though oppressive efforts continue locally in areas inhabited primarily by cows.

    This, though, is a key defining issue for the Right. The GOP is a three-winged bird: Guns, Bombs and Jesus. The Jesus wing has been getting its ass kicked steadily. The Bombs wing (neocons) is discredited. And the Money wing blew up the economy last time they were in control.

    So what exactly does the GOP have? I mean, other than incoherent rage?

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 4

  2. JKB says:

    Well, today a precedent was set to use executive orders to go outside the enactment of laws to imposing unilateral restrictions. So, can you really trust the next president who says he’s not against abortion? And shouldn’t that president do that if it “saves one life”?

    Poorly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 34

  3. stonetools says:

    Doug may be a bit optimistic. For example, although the people of Mississippi have a “right” to have an abortion in the abstract, in reality there is only one medical institution in Mississippi that offer abortion services, thanks to burdensome regulation passed by the Republican state dominated legislature.Only a federal judge’s blocking of the law is keeping that clinic open.

    Abortion rights are under siege in several other states. Look here for a glimpse at the Republican war against abortion rights. Excerpt:

    The concern about federally funded abortions also brought attention to government funding given to organizations and clinics that provide abortion, prompting Arizona, North Carolina, Kansas, Alaska, Ohio (HB 298), and numerous other states to pass laws limiting any and all funds. Planned Parenthood is an organization under the most scrutiny, however, the organization claims all government funds are allotted to STD testing, cancer screening, and birth control for low-income women. Like the optional rider, some opponents wish to see all funding cut to these organizations simply because they perform abortion services.

    The proposed bills and extent to limiting funding is slightly different from state to state, but the overall message is the same: Republicans want limited association to abortion, cutting assistance to organizations that provide necessary healthcare to women. Even organizations that do not perform abortions are at risk of scrutiny or possible loss of state funding if there exists a professional association to a clinic that performs them. It is a more extreme response, but bills like this have been presented in the state of Nebraska, as well as other states.

    Doug as a Republican fellow traveler may hate to admit this but fervid opposition to abortion rights is an important part of the Republican brand.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0

  4. bk says:

    @JKB: You, once again, have shown that you have no idea what you are talking about, and are only capable of regurgitating fake talking points. Here is a list, published by the ultra-loopy liberal WSJ, of those executive actions (not orders). Tell us again what “unilateral restrictions” they are imposing.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/01/16/list-obamas-23-executive-actions-on-gun-violence/

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0

  5. 11B40 says:

    Greetings:

    Shouldn’t your headline be “40 Years Later, Surviviors Oppose Overturning Roe v.Wade” ???

    Or perhaps. “40 Years Later, Roe Opposes Roe v. Wade” ???

    Poorly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 31

  6. jd says:

    There’s no Ideological war being won here. It’s just old people dying off. Glad to see it, too. Some day I also will make room for a fresh thought.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0

  7. michael reynolds says:

    @bk:

    JKB is in a hurry to declare the death of America so he can lock himself in with his guns and. . . Um. . . I don’t know. No one ever does know what they think happens next. Go Galt. Galt n’ Guns.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0

  8. Tony W says:

    @bk: Looks to me like most of it is simply enforcement/prioritization of existing law. I’m sure the NRA will oppose

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  9. swbarnes2 says:

    Also, note that 38% of people think that overturning Roe V. wade is a “critical issue”, while only 9% think that preserving it is.

    That means there’s a lot of pressure to make it inaccessible, and Republicans and conservatives are doing just that.

    So sitting back, and pretending that abortion access is not under fire is obviously false.

    Also, surveys like this only tell you so much. Bob “mandatory vaginal probes” McDonnell, used the cover of the holiday to pass a law designed to shut down abortion clinics. So even though conservatives like Doug and James would likely answer that survey saying that they don’t care much about abortion, they support policies to make them inaccessible, by cheerfully voting for the politicians who make those policies.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0

  10. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    Roe v. Wade reminds me of the Warren Commission report. Both documents were horribly flawed, sloppy, made a lot of mistakes, left people arguing about them for decades…

    but unlike the Warren Commission report, they got it wrong. They had their decision ahead of time, then worked backwards to rationalize it. And the thole “trimester” thing is a totally artificial construct. Pregnancy is analog, not digital, and the “trimesters” were based pretty much on fetal viability. The current record for a premature baby surviving and thriving (eventually) is 21 weeks and 5 days, more than two weeks before the end of the second trimester.

    Admittedly, that was called a “miracle,” and doctors have set 24 weeks as the typical point where babies have a decent chance of surviving and thriving on their own, but that is just an arbitrary point — it’s an average, and every pregnancy is different.

    Roe v. Wade’s Constitutional underpinnings are built on sand. And not just any sand; extremely fine, powdery, totally unstable sand. The “right to an abortion” is part of the “penumbra” of an “inferred right.”

    The proper decision would have been to simply say that abortion does not fall under any of the Enumerated Powers of the Constitution, nor is it addressed by any other part of the Constitution, and therefore, under the 10th Amendment, is an area delegated to the Several States. And we’d have 50 different states (plus DC) all trying their own solutions to the situation.

    And, like in so many other cases, if people didn’t care for their state’s policy, they could work to change it or move. Instead, we have this stupid fight, over and over again, with virtually no chance of ever finally settling it for most people.

    Poorly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 21

  11. michael reynolds says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    And, like in so many other cases, if people didn’t care for their state’s policy, they could work to change it or move. Instead, we have this stupid fight, over and over again, with virtually no chance of ever finally settling it for most people.

    And if you get a legal abortion in Delaware and drive home to Maryland where it’s illegal? Can Maryland prosecute you?

    Can Maryland demand the woman be extradited? THat’s a Maryland citizen who was aborted, right?

    What if the doctor lives in Maryland and practices in Delaware? What if he has two practices?

    What if Delaware wants to advertise its abortion services in Maryland?

    Can a medical practice in Maryland refer a patient to Delaware? Wouldn’t they be committing a crime?

    If Maryland knows you’re going to get an abortion in Delaware, can they restrain you? After all, the fetus is a Maryland citizen.

    We went through all this with Dredd Scott. The SCOTUS then decided that slaves who fled to the north had to be returned.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1

  12. Dave says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: Then I find it ironic that the two things that have proven to lower the teen pregnancy and abortion rates; comprehensive sex ed and access to birth control, are at such odds with the same people claiming to be pro-life. We hate abortions but are not willing to take any steps to prevent them from happening. Maybe if we just stick our heads in the sand and pretend people don’t have sex until they’re married no one could possibly get pregnant. Maybe we’ll just pass laws like West Virginia where teachers get in trouble for not breaking up “gateway” sexual activity like holding hands.
    The Christian Right needs to recognize they are at the very least a half century behind the times.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0

  13. Janis Gore says:

    Ohhhhhhhhm.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  14. Janis Gore says:

    That’s meditation.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. Ben Wolf says:

    @michael reynolds: I’ve noticed this tendency of the modern right for a while: they conceive of America as a remarkably weak and fragile thing, and seem to be almost gleeful in prognosticating its immiment destruction.

    But they’re the Real American Patriots.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1

  16. Jen says:

    Roe v. Wade’s Constitutional underpinnings are built on sand.

    Roe v. Wade’s Constitutional underpinnings were built on the right to privacy established in Griswold v. Connecticut. Do you believe the right to privacy is made-up right? I know that some do, in fact Santorum has explicitly stated he thinks Griswold was in error.

    I wonder how much support that would get in public opinion polling.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2

  17. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @Jen: So, thanks for confirming what I said — that Roe v. Wade didn’t directly draw from the Constitution. And Griswold should also have prevailed on 10th Amendment grounds — that such matters are delegated to The People, as the Several States have no compelling interest in regulating such matters as contraception.

    This differs from abortion, where the state has a gradually-increasing interest in preserving the life of the fetus as it moves towards and past the stage of viability.

    To my way of thinking, “the right to privacy” isn’t a right of the people per se; it’s a limit on the power of the government. It’s a fine distinction, but it’s not “it’s my right” as it is “you (the government) have no right” is how I see the proper expression.

    So Griswold was like the Warren Commission report: poorly done, but still found the right conclusion despite itself.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9

  18. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @Janis Gore: So, you’ve moved on from wishing me killed? Good for you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

  19. Jen says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: There are explicit rights, directly enumerated by the Constitution, and implied rights, built on case precedent. I am not a lawyer, but I think saying “Roe doesn’t draw from the Constitution” is a stretch. The Court established a right to privacy in Griswold–the 10th amendment would have actually supported upholding Connecticut’s law. Some of the justices in that decision relied on the 14th amendment of due process. I prefer the 9th amendment argument.

    “it’s a limit on the power of the government.” Yes, a limit on the power of government to intervene in a medical decision that should be between a woman, her doctor, and her supreme being of choice (if she chooses to believe). The government should only restrict a right when there is a compelling interest to do so, and moving past the point of viability is the compelling interest. Was it an elegant decision? No, probably not. But it is a workable one.

    In short: after 40 years, a right is pretty solidly established. States can try to encroach on that right, but between precedent and public opinion, Roe isn’t going away. “Pro life” types would better serve their cause if their energy was directed at reducing the number of abortions through education and support of birth control. I won’t hold my breath though.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

  20. Rob in CT says:

    I’ve noticed this tendency of the modern right for a while: they conceive of America as a remarkably weak and fragile thing, and seem to be almost gleeful in prognosticating its immiment destruction.

    But they’re the Real American Patriots.

    Yes, because you see once it all collapses because of the acts/omissions of the nefarious libruls, they will pick up the pieces and rebuild it as God (tells them He) intended. The nastier sorts figure they get to shoot some libruls in the chaos, too. Revenge fantasy coupled with escapist dream.

    It’s the Conservative version of the Liberal flight-to-Canada fantasy. Since in the real world, Conservatives don’t actually have any other decent place to imagine they could go for their wish fulfillment, they have to go with a post-apocalyptic fantasy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  21. george says:

    @Dave:

    Then I find it ironic that the two things that have proven to lower the teen pregnancy and abortion rates; comprehensive sex ed and access to birth control, are at such odds with the same people claiming to be pro-life.

    I think they believe, oddly enough, that if you don’t teach kids about sex they won’t be able to figure it out for themselves. This probably ties into their belief that evolution is false.

    My favorite take on sex education is from Monty Python’s “Meaning of Life”, where school manages to make even sex boring – maybe that’s why sex education reduces teen pregnancy (and so abortions).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  22. grumpy realist says:

    I think men would have a much different view of the entire issue if it was their bodies that were being argued over.

    The only way that a lot of men will understand the rage that a lot of women feel about this is if their own bodies get commandeered for the process.

    In other words, if the damn zygote/fetus is so important, let’s stuff it in YOUR belly and YOU carry it to term.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  23. Dave Schuler says:

    Doug, I think you’re overstating a bit what Roe found. It did not find that

    Women have the right to control their bodies.

    It built a decision-making process around the concept of fetal viability, defined in Roe as the “interim point at which the fetus becomes … potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid”. Nowadays, especially with the findings in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that can be as early as 24 weeks gestation.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. Rafer Janders says:

    @grumpy realist:

    I think men would have a much different view of the entire issue if it was their bodies that were being argued over.

    As Erica Jong once wrote, if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  25. michael reynolds says:

    @Ben Wolf:

    They project their own difficulties onto the nation as a whole. So a guy living on a government check, flying a POW flag, with big “No Trespassing” signs all around his house and a basement full of guns, wants to see his own desperate condition as being a symptom of something larger, rather than just a symptom of mental illness or depression or simple stupidity. (Granted I’m guessing about JKB.) He has to rationalize his own paranoia as being caused by. . . well, anything.

    At the less mental end of the spectrum old, rural white folks have to find a reason why they are no longer part of a privileged class and are marginalized in society. A reason other than their own refusal to adapt to a changing world.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  26. Rafer Janders says:

    At the less mental end of the spectrum old, rural white folks have to find a reason why they are no longer part of a privileged class and are marginalized in society.

    The ruling powers have been doing that to rural white folks in this country forever. How’d the Southern planters get so many upcountry poor whites to support the Confederacy? After all, strictly from an economic standpoint the poor whites, virtually all of whom were not slaveowners themselves, got nothing out of slavery; in fact, it actually served to depress their wages. But somehow they all signed up for The Cause. How? By a sustained propaganda campaign telling them that as low miserable white trash as they were, they were at least better than the blacks, and that holding onto that low rung on the ladder was worth giving their lives for.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  27. michael reynolds says:

    @Rafer Janders:
    That’s exactly right. And they still fall for exactly the same game. They cheer for the destruction of unions, then end up working for sharecropper wages and are kept in their places by being trained to scapegoat others — blacks in particular, Hispanics, Chinese. It’s like watching someone play an endless number of games of three card monte and never, ever get it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  28. Rob in CT says:

    Nowadays, especially with the findings in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that can be as early as 24 weeks gestation.

    Setting aside my beliefs on the rightness/wrongness and all that, this is probably correct: the argument will continue to be over what is “early” and what is “late” and what restrictions can be placed on “late.”

    I lean toward “few or none” because I privilege that rights of the woman over those of the still-developing fetus, for a number of reasons that I don’t really want to explicate here/now (it’s been done, too many damn times).

    The last time I looked at poll data on this, most people fall between me and the fetal personhood crowd… which is to say that they basically agree with Roe. Majorities want more restrictions that I do, but strong majorities also oppose the fetal personhood/miscarriage police.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  29. Rob in CT says:

    @michael reynolds:

    Did you see the Wall St. Journal graphic about the poor, put-upon members of the 1% and their staggering tax increases? If not, look it up. It’s f*cking hilarious.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  30. michael reynolds says:

    @Rob in CT:

    The WSJ won’t let me in unless I pay. Waaaah!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  31. Rob in CT says:

    It’s been widely linked & mocked. Tbogg, Yglesias, Drum…

    No need to deal with the WSJ paywall.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. swbarnes2 says:

    @Dave Schuler:

    Nowadays, especially with the findings in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that can be as early as 24 weeks gestation.

    A woman can be a lot less far along than that, and still not have the right to save her own life, if the Catholic church has their way.

    She was very early, 14 weeks. She came in … and there was a hand sticking out of the cervix. Clearly the membranes had ruptured and she was trying to deliver… . There was a heart rate, and [we called] the ethics committee, and they [said], “Nope, can’t do anything.” So we had to send her to [the university hospital]… . You know, these things don’t happen that often, but from what I understand it, it’s pretty clear. Even if mom is very sick, you know, potentially life threatening, can’t do anything.

    Also, that hospital in Arizona lost its Catholic funding because they performed a life saving abortion on a woman who as 11 weeks pregnant

    It’s awful enough that a conservatives want to stand back and refuse medical treatment to any woman for any reason, but if you are imagining that conservatives will let doctors do their job on women in the “early” stages of pregnancy, you couldn’t be more wrong. Empirically, they do not want to let women protect their own lives, period, whether or not the fetus is viable.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  33. Mikey says:

    @michael reynolds: Did you try to get in through a Googled link? That usually works for me. Just Google the title of the piece you want to read, click on the returned link, and you should be in.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. swbarnes2 says:

    @Rob in CT:

    this is probably correct: the argument will continue to be over what is “early” and what is “late” and what restrictions can be placed on “late.”

    Empirically, conservatives will never think that a pregnancy is “early” enough to require a different policy.

    Conservatives make a huge deal about how the morning after pill is an abortificant because it might prevent a zygote a day old from implanting.

    This early and late business is a dodge. Conservatives never think that a woman has a right to be anything but a sex outlet and breeding incubator, and they will therefore never want policies to allow women to get out of fulfilling their God-ordained function.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  35. sam says:

    @michael reynolds:

    “The WSJ won’t let me in unless I pay. Waaaah!”

    Go here, Michael: http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  36. michael reynolds says:

    @sam:

    Thanks. I definitely take a hit. I’m not thrilled about it, and come October (when I file after the various delays) I will weep and gnash my teeth. But it’s what I voted for.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  37. Rob in CT says:

    No rending of garments? Come on, there must be rending of garments!

    ;)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  38. gVOR08 says:

    @Dave: It’s all souls and god’s will. Contraception is interfering with god’s will as much as abortion. That’s why they’re OK with Bristol Palin. She sinned, but she repented, so that’s all good. And she raised the kid as god intended. I’ve never been able to figure out how they’re so sure it wasn’t god’s will that what’s his name wear a condom, but that’s a topic for another day.)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  39. wr says:

    @gVOR08: “That’s why they’re OK with Bristol Palin. She sinned, but she repented, so that’s all good.”

    No, they’re OK with Bristol Palin because she’s on their team. If she’d been the daughter of a Democrat, it wouldn’t matter if she nailed herself to a cross to demonstrate her repentance — she would have been a slut forever, and the Jenos’ of the world would be dragging up her name on every thread to show how immoral Democrats are.

    Bristol got a pass for the same reason that a Republican senator can be caught hiring whores to dress him in diapers and spank him and then give lectures on morality — if you’re on the team, it’s all okay.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  40. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @michael reynolds:

    and a basement full of guns,

    Michael, trailers don’t have basements. Just sayin’….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  41. MIke says:

    My position over the past four decades has evolved from uncertainty and selfishness to someone who, through revealing advanced technologies and personal struggles, recognizes the life of a person at conception. To many people I make our world a better place, something that wouldn’t be so if I hadn’t been given the opportunity to be adopted and exist. I apply my opposition of murder to the unborn. There are plainly incontestable rights to life for every human being regardless what stage we exist. I stand in firm opposition and I speak for those who cannot. Let LIFE reign! The most innocent among us deserve a chance, regardless how they arrive. There exist no sane reason or right for us to snuff-out a life. I pray that eyes will be opened and hearts will be healed. Love & peace to all. Please give your soul a chance to hear.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  42. swbarnes2 says:

    @MIke:

    My position over the past four decades has evolved from uncertainty and selfishness to someone who, through revealing advanced technologies and personal struggles, recognizes the life of a person at conception.

    Treating the zygote like a person necessitates treating the organism it is living off of as less than a person. So your recognizing the person hood of a 8 cell zygote necessarily means denying the personhood of living, breathing, thinking, feeling women.

    Or, to put it another way, if your view of the moral situation is identical whether the zygote is in a living, breathing, thinking, feeling woman, or a stainless steel incubator, you are saying that the woman has no more moral value than the incubator.

    This is indeed the stance of conservatives, the evidence confirms it.

    To many people I make our world a better place, something that wouldn’t be so if I hadn’t been given the opportunity to be adopted and exist.

    But Savita Halappanavar wasn’t making the world a better place, so it’s okay that she died?

    Or the 16 year old in the Dominican Republic? She wasn’t going to make the world a better place, so it’s okay that she died?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  43. Don L says:

    And, the majority of the populace shouted “give us Barabass” and crucified Christ. Majorities are such silly criteria to imply goodness. By the way, the majority of Germans supported Hitler, but back then we better understood pure evvil for what it is.

    I assume people remember that when Roe was imposed upon (53 million slaughter innocent humans since)the numbers were about 79% against. Recreational sex is such a seductive corruptor of mankind.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

  44. An Interested Party says:

    Recreational sex is such a seductive corruptor of mankind.

    Oh please…who are you to decide what is corrupt? It is quite possible to enjoy the pleasures of sex without fertilizing an egg…if you are so troubled that sex is so seductive, perhaps you might want to pray to your God to make sex less pleasurable…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0