As usual, the 1,500 or so folks polled are supposed to give us a precise indication of what the majority of Americans think about pro-life or pro-choice?No freaking way.......and if you read the little fine print at the bottom of said poll, it has the old + or - 3% error rate......I say it's the same as it always was........It's still MY BODY and it should be MY CHOICE - butt out you fundie freaks.
Barry, the orange line is the %surveyed who identified themselves as pro-life. The line doesn't cross above the 50% mark until this year.Make sense now?
that graph looks like they are having unprotected sex to me..i believe that is the democrats on top and repubs on bottom..jes sayin
"I also trust Yahoo but that second sentence doesn't make sense when compared to the graph."Are you referring to how it looks like it is the first time EVER that this has happened? Because it sure doesn't look like it was anywhere NEAR being more pro life than pro choice in 1995.....
And 100% of the folks surveyed weren't aborted.
PRO-WEED, PRO-HUMMERS, PRO-MASTER@#$%^@%$%, PRO-WHITEY, PRO-BOOGER PICKER, PRO-ASS SCRATHING, PRO-TEIN, PRO-MESCUOUS, PRO--PUNTANG, PRO-SOUTH, PRO-JARHEADFOS/SOB, PRO-PANE, PRO-PRO......ETC
When a pollster goes over to a blender and asks "hey little body parts, how do you feel about abortion?" and gets an answer...then we'll have a balanced opinion poll on abortion.
9:08, good thing your mom didn't want one, or wasn't allowed to have one, eh?
Maybe, just maybe, after 10-20 million abortions, women and families have changed their position. Person experience and guilt can be a torment...Also, the unwed mother's love for their children may make a difference...even to her family!
Polls are only accurate when they favor the leftist view of things.. when they favor the right, you get a bunch of "sampling error," "statistical bias" complaints. That's hilarious.Good luck in 2010, Lefties.
The ones who are questioning Barry's graph reading skills are idiots. It states "it's the first time since 1995 that a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life. Look how many pro-lifers there were in 95. 33%. Not anywhere near a majority.
It's because people now have the ability to look at detailed sonograms, and they realize that.....GASP.....the fetus is actually a living, breathing human being!!!
I say "PRAISE GOD!" for those statistics. Respect ALL living beings!
I don't trust reported statistics at all. I've worked long enough in a business that "paints" reports as positive or negative, depending on what the focus is moved to. Good business "politicians" can make statistics say exactly what they want them to say.
cool argument,too bad i don't give a damn
The most shocking film I have ever seen is the 80 year old priest being deprived of his freedom of speech. He is cuffed and hauled off to jail by the brownshirts. I am not Catholic or Christian but of Jewish ancestory. This shocks me. Where is Churchill?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiz4tfjSuPc
I suspect it is a combination of things: the fact that babies can live at 23 weeks gestation, we can start life in a test tube, stem cell research, etc. I doubt that all the people identified as "pro-life" are 100% against abortion, but rather concerned about the direction of science vs. sanctity of life.
I had a chat with some Wise County young men this week. I started relizing how irresponsible they are with their view of sexuallity.I used to say that we need nurseries in our high schools for the children of teenage moms. Not so anymore, the doctors are sucking the brains out of the babies, killing them. These babies are not even given a grave. When I asked these fine Christian boys if these murdered babies would be resurected when Christ returns they were very confussed and could not answer.
Jarhead No one said a word about "sampling error" or "statistical bias" other than you.It's just the poll is interesting because it represents such a sudden change in opinion and BArry, and others, are wondering about what caused that.And 9:55 - the abortion method you described is extremely rarely used, and only used when the mother's health, or even life is at stake. That is a choice for the family and their doctors to make, don't you think?I am pro-choice & that only means that I favor that the people involved get to decide how to deal with their personal, private situations, whatever that may be, instead of the government or some religious doctrine telling them what they can and cannot do.
"It's just the poll is interesting because it represents such a sudden change in opinion and BArry, and others, are wondering about what caused that."You must have skipped over the very first comment where they question the sample size of 1500. Don't you remember college statistics?Oh.
Yea, I'm with 9:08========It's my body and if I want to smoke, put meth in it, abort babies, run around nekkid, eat marijuana, hack off parts for the fun of it...........you get the picture
you're all idiots and SHEEPLE..
I believe the change is due to more and more people realizing that there are two bodies, entities involved, both of which should have constitutional rights.The right to life should supersede the right to "not be bothered".If it is a question of life vs life, that is different.Denying over 30 million humans, Ameicans, their constitutional rights, just because they are temporarily a bother, is enough.No human, much less NINE people in black robes, should determine WHEN a human being is bestowed, his/her rights.Erring on the side of caution, as liberals are normally want to do, should mean that rights are accrued when an entity becomes a human being. A human embryo is human, not canine, feline, bovine, equine, etc. It is surely a "being". It is surely alive. Thus, a human being.This is only a question of setting. Time and place. At present, if you happen to be in a womb or birth canal, within a nine month period, you may legally and arbitrarily be put to death, without cause, or any due process whatsoever. That is simply not right.I have been in a birth canal many times since my actual birth. Scares me every time.
Jarhead, you lie. Your argument comes from a lie. I will ask your the same question I asked the boys. If you are Christian, then do you believe that these babies with their brains sucked out by a doctor will be resurected.In April of 2000, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Stenberg vs. Carhart decision, which was handed down in June, 2000. The Court struck down a Nebraska statute which had banned partial-birth abortion. Nebraska, as well as over two dozen other states, had banned this procedure, but the Court said the procedure should remain legal. One of the reasons given was that any proposed ban must allow the procedure "for the health of the mother." Fr. Pavone was present at the Supreme Court both for the oral arguments and on the day the decision was issued. At a press conference on the Court steps, Father asked the lead attorney from the pro-abortion side whether any evidence presented to the Court had identified even a single medical circumstance in which this procedure was the only way to preserve the mother's health. Of course, none could be cited, and the reason is that none exist.The mother's health can be preserved using medical proceedures that are commmonly used when death of the infant is not desired.
Jarhead, sorry, I just addressed the wrong person about killing babies.
The poll started asking the question in 1995. The AP explanation of the numbers should have said "since 1995, when they first began tracking the numbers." The increase is apparently in the number of Republicans who now describe themselves as pro-life, up 10% in the last year, while Democrat numbers remained about the same. The increase is similar among those who describe themselves as "conservative or moderate." The numbers for self-described Liberals remained the same.My guess is that the revelations of Obama's extreme pro-abortion stance is probably responsible for a large part of the increase. Conservatives and moderates wanted to distance themselves from it.
Stop abortion. Sterilize more men.
The bigger question is, how does this affect the crime rate, high school graduation rate, unemployment rate, etc. about 17-20 years down the road? We are currently enjoying the benefits (less crime, less unemployment, etc) of the huge amount of black abortions that occurred during the 80's. If fewer teens are now choosing abortion, we will begin to see the effects of that in society about 15-20 years in the future...it WON'T be good. No Country for Old Men? Understatement.
Jarhead - You're right - my mistake. I somehow did not read the first post.But, yeah, I do remember college statistics. A poll of 1500 people, when it's done scientifically with random sampling, is a perfectly valid representation of the universe they polled. Gallup is a respected pollster.I accept the results - I just wonder what caused the sudden and significant change.But once again, you're right. I missed the first post.Sorry about that.
I am always perplexed how the same "Christian" stance that claims the unborn are one of God's creatures and deserves to live....but once that bugger is born the same group doesn't want to help educate, feed, or provide health care for said bugger born to a poor or mentally ill parent. I too aware of this reality as I have helped raise a few of those buggers and they too develop mental illness and end up poor. Christianity doesn't stop at the birth canal...it should be to the coffin. But that would require sacrifice from the people of faith and they ain't going to spend any of their money on that bugger.
257 - Is it necessary to start listing the charities that Christians run to help feed, educate and provide health care for those in need? Studies show that "religious" people (not confined to Christians) give more money and time to charities than secular people do. Google "Christian, charities" and see if you can find examples among the 11,000,000 hits.
2:12, I guess you are saying if we suck the brains out of African American babies, the crime rate will go down.
Who cares. This debate has already been ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court. Nothing would change even if that chart said 99% pro-life. Even if for some miracle that this decision was reversed or there was a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion, people would just fly to another country and have their pregnancies terminated (kill their unborn children). As we move forward in the global age, it is going to mean less and less what "Americans" feel about any given issue. We had a president and a whole religious following who opposed stem cell research, yet patients like Ms. Murphree simply go elsewhere to have their needs met. Taking polls like this is purely a waste of time.
12:00/12:04That's okay, I'm always willing to take one for the team on either side of an issue. :) Have a great weekend!KOh, and here's a link to a good video that'll make you pro-choice people think. It won't change your mind, but it'll give you some insight to the potential for life and where we'd be if some people decided on abortion versus life.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIBZ-kJ6XAcPeace out.
408 - I would agree with you about polls, except for the last eight years of incessant polling designed to demean everything done by the Bush administration. This led to massive public disenchantment with Republicans in general and the election of the current inhabitant of the White House. So the use of polls to sway, rather than reflect, public opinion makes them very important.And by the way, opposition has been to embryonic stem cell research, not all stem cell research. There is pretty much widespread support for adult stem cell research, which has already shown practical results. Did you know that after nearly 30 years of research, and all the hoopla, embryonic stem cells have still never been tested on humans?
9:08, your body may belong to you but the baby is not your property. Humans, including babies, are not property to be disposed of because they are inconvenient.
The trends of the poll and the methodology seemed to please all the pro choice folks until there is a change of majority. Then they start evaluating the poll.
No comment... I just wanted to see the views of the Wise County Bible-thumpers, thanks again BARRY.
Barry, Damn u! You said you'd be doning the Stanky Leg at Frilley's tonight! Hey, have a good time at the graduation. I know it means alot to your niece. :)
Wordkyle.....STFU.....you have no idea what you are talking about. Just because a charity is labeled "Christian", doesn't always mean they are Christian.
705 - You may be right. How about providing a list of eight or ten charities labeled "Christian" that are not Christian? I could probably come up with that many that are Christian. You seem to be a little angry that I believe Christians regularly engage in charity work. Why? I was simply responding to the very broad accusation that Christians as a whole don't care about babies who are not aborted (i.e., "help educate, feed, or provide health care for said bugger born to a poor or mentally ill parent.") The anti-Christian rhetoric occasionally goes too far. (And for what it's worth, I very rarely have "no idea" what I'm talking about.)
WordKyle, glad to see you defending Christianity. I've done the same many times when Mzchief starts on her "Book of Myth and Fables" rant. Thanks for standing up for the Christian faith!
So Barry, Mike Singletary delivered a stirring "Benediction" without uttering a prayer??? Please fill me in on the benediction, "without a prayer"?Hmmm... double induindo.Just explain.Besides, i'm so disappointed you weren't doing the Stanky Leg at frilley's tonight!Double fake BG's favorite Bar Ho
Wordklye... nice work. Thanks for your comments tonight. Sometimes I don't agree with you, but on this little debate, I do.
I grew up in a children's home ran by a Christian church. It cost me nothing so I guess you can call it a charity. There were several hundred children there whose parents did not abort them.
What do you think it means when the abortion debate here in Gawd's country draws fewer comments than the "he only had one joint" debate?Maybe we should encourage all women who are considering an abortion to go home and eat marijuana and think things over.
Less Octo-mom, John & Kate plus 8How About:The one-child policy promotes couples having only one child in rural and urban areas. Parents with multiple births aren’t given the same benefits as parents of one child. Many times the parents have to pay money to the government in order to get permission to have another child.Thanks China
9:08 must be your property. start taking care of them.
Wordkyle - Polls in the last 8 years were used to demean everything the Bush administration did??????That has got to be the craziest claim you have made yet.Polls are only polls.....used to find out public opinion. Both parties use them, as you well know, as well as the various media.Get a reality check - one that is not always fueled by your distrust of the opposite political party.
734 - Okay, you asked for this:In 2007, AP-Yahoo News conducted a poll of Americans about the economy. One of the questions: "Do you favor or oppose canceling the tax cuts passed since 2001 for people who are wealthy?" This despite the fact that the share (percentage) of taxes the wealthy paid increased because of the tax rate cuts. In other words, the "wealthy" did not receive a "tax cut" at all. Does it not seem as though the question was designed to elicit a particular response? In January 2000, even before Bush's inauguration, Newsweek ran an article titled "Newsweek poll: Reject John Ashcroft." The poll touched on several subjects, including asking this question: "Do you think Bush should scale back his political agenda because he lost the popular vote nationwide and has such anarrow margin in the Electoral College, OR that he should go ahead and pursue his plans for the country regardless of these factors?" 68% thought Bush should pursue his plans. Even though the question was designed to obtain a particular answer, a supermajority supported Bush.Regading Ashcroft: "Do you think Congress should approve Bush's choice of John Ashcroft for Attorney General, or reject Ashcroft as too far to the right on issues like abortion, drugs, and gun control to be an effective Attorney General?" 41% of those polled thought Congress should reject Ashcroft, while 37% thought otherwise. So why the headline? (Which was picked up by various other media outlets as well.) Which of those two questions constitutes the bigger news? Media-conducted polls were used to undermine Bush for eight years. When particular polls favored Bush, the results were ignored or under-reported. Eventually Americans came to depend on poll headlines and news stories for their political information. By the end of Bush's time in office, the mainstream media had accomplished its goal. They had gone beyond reporting, to setting the national agenda.
Well - Workyle, my original complaint to you still stands. Your post here is just an example of what I was talking about.MAn, that's news to me - that the wealthy did not get a taxcut in 2001 that stayed in effect all through the Bush Administration. BOTH political parties, including Pres. Bush, used that tax cut as a talking points - Bush saying it was needed -He said the wealthy paid most of the taxes so they should get most of the tax cuts, etc. Frontline has a great show "10 trillion and counting" that you should see. Several of the people interviews were top Bush administration officials.I've never seen ANYWHERE, any reliable source, saying that the tax cut on the wealthy did not exist in real terms. But as you often do, you find some obscure blog or something that comes up with something no one else believes.I would bet that you got you information on the Newsweek poll somewhere other than Newsweek, and your reporting of it may or may not be fair. I've seen you manipulate the facts too many times.Your first sentence is funny "You asked for it," as if you were going to blow me away with your facts. INstead you just proved my point.I can just you typing away, so righteous as you give your biased take on the facts. Pretty funny image in my head there.And what do you have to say for the FOX news polls. They were reported totally correctly?My point is polls are just polls and people, or news media can interpret the polls how they want, but you can still see the question and the results and BOTH liberal, conservative, and neutral agencies use them.
Wordkyle - 9:11 -Your entire last paragraph is an opinion of yours, not a fact.It was the media's reporting of polls that caused Americans to turn away from the Bush policies????? In my best Saturday Night Live, Weekend Update voice, "REALLY? REALLY?"
6:26, you believe what you hear in the news. You believe that Bush said what you hear the new media reports him as saying. Try researching the facts before you say "Bush said" or "Bush supported". And please do not use the liberal news media as your source.
626 - "You asked for it" was in reference to the length of my post, necessary to cite the polls.When it comes to talking about tax cuts, one would expect it to refer to paying less in taxes. After the Bush tax rate cuts, the wealthy paid a higher percentage of all taxes paid than ever before. This info is available on the IRS website. My point is this: a reasonable person could arrive at the reasonable conclusion that the poll questions were designed to elicit a particular response. And although I agree that the political parties use them, the poll results highlighted in the media during the Bush administration were almost universally anti-Bush. Those polls, in turn, manipulated public opinion.724 - To a large degree, yes. Add the biased poll reporting to the biased news reporting, and you have the media setting the national agenda.
It'd be funny if the lines on that graph formed a drooping penis or somethin.I'd laugh a while.
Yes 9:08 - I get my information from the news media.Those of us that are not EYEWITNESSES to every single news event happening in the world have to depend on the media to bring us the news.I'm sure you do the same. Or else you are totally ignorant of what goes on around the world.
Post a Comment