[Gallup] Abortion Views

[Johan]

More Americans "Pro-Life" than "Pro-Choice" for the first time since Gallup began polling on the issue. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx)

A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling 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.

I find it interesting, because I see people of staunch ideological positions attempting to read the "tea leaves" to provide evidence that society is moving in a direction that favors their views/positions. It wasn't even a decade ago when Rove was talking up a permanent Republican majority (there's a laugh for you, if there ever was one!), and today some of a more liberal/progressive persuasion declare the death knell of conservatism in the social/political realms.

Interesting. Also interesting considering 40% of all children born last year were born to women out of wedlock. No locks for them! :D

[Ink Asylum]

The thorough and respected Nate Silver from fivethirtyeight.com looked into the numbers on this issue this week. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/is-public-opinion-changing-on-abortion.html)Not just one poll, but all of them. Some of his charts:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SgxClNgVgJI/AAAAAAAABI8/wRBA64eFLOs/s400/abort2.PNG

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SgxFaGgVvUI/AAAAAAAABJM/D1BK_FsqxEw/s400/abort1.PNG

And a combination of the two:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SgxGPRJDkkI/AAAAAAAABJU/PLg8MrfU3V4/s400/abort3.PNG

His conclusions:

But is there actually any evidence that public sentiments on abortion are changing?

In my opinion, probably not -- and if there is change in public opinion, it is occurring very slowly.

While it's possible that public opinion has shifted more dramatically on this issue since sometime late last year, it seems highly unlikely. Polls don't move without reasons, and abortion hasn't been particularly in the news of late. Who knows -- maybe Baby Trig won over a few hearts and minds -- but odds are the Pew result is a mild outlier. Since the abortion choice question is surveyed quite frequently, we will know soon enough.

There's just no trend at all there, except maybe toward slightly more people having an opinion, one way or the other, about the abortion choice question.

In fact, the remarkable thing about abortion is precisely how steady public opinion has been on it for many, many years.

My advice is not to never pay too much attention to any one or two polls. Look for trends, and on this issue sharp movements in one direction or another are almost non-existent, which makes me suspicious of any poll that shows a sudden change in either direction with no recent event that could cause it.

[BlackPete]

What Ink said: I'd sooner trust a meta poll than any single poll.

[ShivaX]

Interesting numbers, though theres a lot of leeway and variation within any given group.

If you look at the the legality question 76% of people support abortion in "certain circumstances" (53%) or any circumstance (23%). Theres quite a lot of variation in "certain circumstances" I'm sure, especially since the only other option is "illegal in all circumstances."

I think a break down of the "certain circumstances" would be interesting to see. I imagine you have a wide variety of opinions in there ranging from people who support it the cases of rape or incest, people who only really oppose partial-birth abortion type scenarios and people who would say support it in the first and/or second trimester.

Overall the numbers don't seem to vary a whole lot. The big thing of note is the "under any circumstance" dipping below the "illegal in all" line for the first time in over 30 years. I think a lot of that might come from people starting to understand exactly how horrific "any circumstance" can really be.

Edit: Or like Ink said it could just be an outlier. Single polls aren't exactly that reliable.

[Johan]

My advice is not to never pay too much attention to any one or two polls. Look for trends, and on this issue sharp movements in one direction or another are almost non-existent, which makes me suspicious of any poll that shows a sudden change in either direction with no recent event that could cause it.

I agree that looking at a number of polls, in other words a larger sample size of polling data, would lend more credible information.

However, I disagree that the Gallup poll shows a "sudden change" in direction. 51% to 42% is not a sudden or dramatic change in the fairly even split on this topic in America. In fact, considering error margins, it's quite close, I am sure, to previous polls.

I think it's interesting in particular because young people appear to be more conservative on abortion and less so on gay marriage. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/11/social_conservatives_leaders_feel_scapegoated_9643 5.html)

In other words, society is not moving continually toward a liberal/progressive position on every issue of social conflict or controversy. In fact, it appears to be moving toward a conservative position on the issue of abortion.

[Ink Asylum]

In other words, society is not moving continually toward a liberal/progressive position on every issue of social conflict or controversy. In fact, it appears to be moving toward a conservative position on the issue of abortion.

I would say it looks more like we're moving towards more liberal/progressive positions on most issues but remaining static on abortion, just like Nate Silver's graphs show.

[Johan]

I would say it looks more like we're moving towards more liberal/progressive positions on most issues but remaining static on abortion, just like Nate Silver's graphs show.

You can say that. I wouldn't agree.

[Ink Asylum]

We'll know for sure in another ten years. :)

[Kelegacy]

It might be a good thing younger people are becoming more conservative on abortion, since they're the ones that usually have them. This is where sexual education comes into play, something that many parents and religious crazies are strictly against. (how ironic, huh?) A reduction of abortions would be great, but I don't think it should be illegal, even though I find them disheartening. With a baby on the way, I cannot fathom how someone could have one, but again, it's not for me to decide.

I think people need to stop worrying about others' lives so much and just focus on their own. The world would be a much better place, at least in terms of civil liberties.

[Ink Asylum]

A reduction in unwanted pregnancies would be even better, of course.

[National Kato]

Education is the key. Otherwise, it won't matter whether it's illegal or not.

[Johan]

This is where sexual education comes into play, something that many parents and religious crazies are strictly against.

I suppose that depends upon how broadly you define "religious crazies" and how you define sexual education (its content).

[Kelegacy]

Education is the key. Otherwise, it won't matter whether it's illegal or not.

I think we should teach kids NOT to have sex. That is the best way to keep kids from doing it.

[Doogie2K]

I think we should teach kids NOT to have sex. That is the best way to keep kids from doing it.

What's the first thing a kid does when you tell them, "no?" They've tried that and it doesn't work too well.

The way I see it, teens are gonna have sex with each other. It's the way things have been for decades. Better that they know how to protect themselves than to just give them a blanket ban and say nothing further.

[Kelegacy]

I suppose that depends upon how broadly you define "religious crazies" and how you define sexual education (its content).

I debated on whether to use that term or not, but I decided to just leave it in there. I don't really think every religious person who is against sexual education is crazy, just out of touch.

[Kelegacy]

What's the first thing a kid does when you tell them, "no?" They've tried that and it doesn't work too well.

The way I see it, teens are gonna have sex with each other. It's the way things have been for decades. Better that they know how to protect themselves than to just give them a blanket ban and say nothing further.

I was being sarcastic. :) Many people think the only sexual education is abstinence or just ignore it altogether. Pretend your child isn't a teenager, or some such crap.

When you resort to those methods only, you're just adding to the problem altogether.

[Ink Asylum]

Perhaps you should have used some plum, then. I thought you were serious, too.

[Kelegacy]

Perhaps you should have used some plum, then. I thought you were serious, too.

I learned how to put a condom on a banana two days after having sex for the first time. I put two condoms on because I was so worried. I found out later two increases the chances of breakage.

Yeah, I was stupid. But it still felt great. :)

Basically, we need more education, and I think doing it in school is great. Learning that sort of stuff in class along with your peers is much easier than with your parents.

[Johan]

I think doing it in school is great. Learning that sort of stuff in class along with your peers is much easier than with your parents.

This is not a universally shared view, and parents should have the right to determine what their kids are exposed to in this area, as far as I'm concerned.

[ShivaX]

This is not a universally shared view, and parents should have the right to determine what their kids are exposed to in this area, as far as I'm concerned.

The problem is that more often than not those parents determine their kid doesn't need to know anything and tells them nothing about it cause they're "good kids." Then they end up pregnant or knock someone up.

People have to be somewhat pragmatic about things. Your kids will do what they want, even if you raise them right they're likely to do something stupid. In fact doing something stupid is practically a guarantee for a kid, so at the very least they should have a rudimentary understanding of how things work so they can be less stupid about things.

[Doogie2K]

I was being sarcastic. :) Many people think the only sexual education is abstinence or just ignore it altogether. Pretend your child isn't a teenager, or some such crap.

When you resort to those methods only, you're just adding to the problem altogether.

I see that now. Well, consider that a response to the general argument all the same; that shit don't work. :)

[National Kato]

The problem is that more often than not those parents determine their kid doesn't need to know anything and tells them nothing about it cause they're "good kids." Then they end up pregnant or knock someone up.

And then we're all on the hook for the tax burden.

[Ox]

The problem is that more often than not those parents determine their kid doesn't need to know anything and tells them nothing about it cause they're "good kids." Then they end up pregnant or knock someone up.
Is there any evidence that a large fraction of abortions are committed by women who received abstinence-only education? Because I see this link being asserted all the time, but I'm not sure anyone has bothered to back it with hard data.

[Johan]

The problem is that more often than not those parents determine their kid doesn't need to know anything and tells them nothing about it cause they're "good kids." Then they end up pregnant or knock someone up.

I would love to see the studies that correlate higher rates of teen pregnancy directly with parental neglect of sexual education. I'd be interested in proof of that.

Anecdotally, nobody in my entire family has been an unwed teen mother or had an abortion.

[Ink Asylum]

I don't recall seeing that link widely reported. Mostly what I hear is that abstinence only education does next to nothing to actually effect the number of teens that have sex and get pregnant. So federally funding abstinence only education is a waste of money on its own.

Here's one federally funded study on abstinence-only education. (http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/abstinencereport.asp)

A recent study of four abstinence education programs, conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., finds that the programs had no effect on the sexual abstinence of youth. But it also finds that youth in these programs were no more likely to have unprotected sex, a concern that has been raised by some critics of these programs.

The study, conducted for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, was authorized by Congress in 1997 to evaluate the effectiveness of programs funded under Title V, Section 510 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Nationwide, more than 700 Title V, Section 510 programs receive up to $50 million annually from the federal government in order to teach youth about abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage. Additional funding from state matching block grants brings annual spending for Title V, Section 510 sexual abstinence education programs to $87.5 million.

The study found that youth in the four evaluated programs were no more likely than youth not in the programs to have abstained from sex in the four to six years after they began participating in the study. Youth in both groups who reported having had sex also had similar numbers of sexual partners and had initiated sex at the same average age.

Contrary to concerns raised by some critics of federal funding for abstinence education, however, youth in the abstinence education programs were no more likely to have engaged in unprotected sex than youth who did not participate in the programs.

[Ink Asylum]

I would love to see the studies that correlate higher rates of teen pregnancy directly with parental neglect of sexual education. I'd be interested in proof of that.

Anecdotally, nobody in my entire family has been an unwed teen mother or had an abortion.

Anecdotally as well: Bristol Palin. :)

[Ox]

Anecdotally as well: Bristol Palin. :)
Isn't Bristol Palin an anecdote that full liberal sex education sucks as well? Bristol wasn't taught abstinence-only.

[Kelegacy]

This is not a universally shared view, and parents should have the right to determine what their kids are exposed to in this area, as far as I'm concerned.

I agree. Parents should have a say. The students should be able to be excused from the class, just like 1 or 2 were in my school. It's ironic because those were some of the most maladjusted kids in school.

We have a few Catholic schools in the area and some kids from my hometown broke away from the public school to go there instead (their parents choice obviously). The most disturbing thing is that these kids turned out to be the horniest, most promiscuous students I knew. My friend used to sleep with a lot of the Catholic High School girls because they were so easy. That is just a little anecdotal evidence but I'm sure others have experienced similar occurances.

So yes, I feel the parents should be able to choose, but don't be surprised if it backfires. If you aren't going to let your kid be taught at a school level, be proactive and teach them yourself, and don't be afraid. Sex can be a nervous subject for most parents.

Thankfully I had sexual education in junior high and also had two health classes in high school (freshman year and junior). They were my favorite classes, and other kids really enjoyed them as well because the teachers were awesome. They were called "health" classes and only a small part of the course was actual sexual education. Hell, our teacher passed out dental dams in different flavors and people were allowed to taste them.

[Ink Asylum]

Isn't Bristol Palin an anecdote that full liberal sex education sucks as well? Bristol wasn't taught abstinence-only.

I don't know what Alaska's schools teach, but Johan was talking about parental neglect.

[Ox]

I don't know what Alaska's schools teach, but Johan was talking about parental neglect.
Okay. Which way does the Bristol anecdote lean: toward demonstrating that parental neglect leads to teen pregnancy, or toward demonstrating that even dedicated parents sometimes have teens who get pregnant?

Answering that would require knowing whether the Palins were involved parents or not, which is probably even tougher than figuring out whether Alaska had abstinence-only education.

[Ink Asylum]

Either way, it shows anecdotal data is useless.

[pomeroy]

Huh. An abortion thread? Started by Johan?

It's more likely than you think.

[Johan]

Huh. An abortion thread? Started by Johan?

It's more likely than you think.

Huh. A post. By pomeroy.

It's more likely than you think.

Thanks for the contribution! :D

Either way, it shows anecdotal data is useless.

According to you, at least. ;)

:har har:

[pomeroy]

Oh, sorry. I just don't feel like playing your game today.

Carry on, though. Fighting that good fight. Changing people's minds about abortion. No, it's not an even bigger waste of time than being on the internet...you're doing God's work! ;)

[Johan]

Oh, sorry. I just don't feel like playing your game today.

Carry on, though. Fighting that good fight. Changing people's minds about abortion. No, it's not an even bigger waste of time than being on the internet...you're doing God's work! ;)

Um...yeah...uh...interesting.

Sure! Have a good day, I suppose?

:confused:

[Spockrocket]

My high school takes the abstinence only approach. It worked so well last year's senior class only had one teen mother! (Out of a class of approximately 140 students).

Yeah, it's a small high school, and yeah, it's anecdotal evidence. But still, I can't help but wonder if things would have gone differently had the school offered better sex ed.

[Kelegacy]

My high school takes the abstinence only approach. It worked so well last year's senior class only had one teen mother! (Out of a class of approximately 140 students).

Yeah, it's a small high school, and yeah, it's anecdotal evidence. But still, I can't help but wonder if things would have gone differently had the school offered better sex ed.

Pregnancy is one side effect of no sex ed. Diseases is another. You can usually tell a pregnant lady apart from others, but people with VD look the same as you or I (usually).

[Johan]

Time: "Understanding America's Shift on Abortion." (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1899143,00.html?cnn=yes)

Worth a read.

In 1995, when Gallup started asking the question, the split was 56-33 in favor of abortion rights. Now the lines have crossed, and 51% call themselves pro-life while only 42% say pro-choice. It's a shift that stretches past personal convictions and into legal constraints. For 35 years, a majority of Americans have wanted abortion to be, essentially, legal with limits. But the movement towards greater restraint is clear.

I think the presence of a shift in thinking on the issue is undeniable. How lasting will it be? Who knows...

[ClannerDelta]

Answering that would require knowing whether the Palins were involved parents or not, which is probably even tougher than figuring out whether Alaska had abstinence-only education.

I got out of highschool years before Bristol did and was in an entirely different city/borough but I know WE didn't have abstinence only education when I was going there.

Bristol isn't really someone that can be held up as a symbol for either side. When going to highschool, with extensive "health" classes, we still had 3 or 4 teen mothers per grade all the way through my highschool years. Tons more STD's.

Alaska is cold and dark. The way many teens cope is with drugs and sex.

[Jackel]

I got out of highschool years before Bristol did and was in an entirely different city/borough but I know WE didn't have abstinence only education when I was going there.

Bristol isn't really someone that can be held up as a symbol for either side. When going to highschool, with extensive "health" classes, we still had 3 or 4 teen mothers per grade all the way through my highschool years. Tons more STD's.

Alaska is cold and dark. The way many teens cope is with drugs and sex.

Yup. Having recently moved here to a small town, I've learned that they had more teen mothers than at my high school in Vancouver. (comparing the size of a 600 person graduating class vs. a 30 person graduating class).

Because the options here are so limited, sex, drugs, & drinking tend to be more popular than they might be in places that offer different teen activities.

[Midrael]

I seem to recall reading recently that there was a study that looked at the effectiveness of abstinence only education. If I remember the results right, I think it turned out that it wasn't effective really in lowering sexual behavior, but it didn't decrease the likelihood of teens using protection either.

Maybe this is it: 2007 Washington Post Article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041301003.html) - Kinda old though :p