Abortion Survey Results

Last week I posted about training Oregon Right to Life students on how to persuasively articulate their pro-life views. I had them survey people on the streets of Portland using a simple abortion questionnaire. Although this was far from being a statistically relevant, scientific, or perfect survey, the results were still interesting. Most people the students talked to (in the predominately liberal city of Portland) did not fall into the abortion-for-any-reason camp. 74% preferred there were fewer abortions and 77% felt that abortion shouldn’t be used as a form of birth control. It was also encouraging to see a majority of people (74%) believing we should attempt to persuade abortion-minded women to choose adoption instead.

Another interesting finding was that many people who indicated they were pro-choice still opposed abortion for the majority of reasons that abortions are done in the United States. Data from the Guttmacher Institute indicates that at least 86% of abortions are done for socio-economic reasons (can’t afford another child, don’t want another child, timing is wrong for another child, don’t want to be a single mother, not mature enough to be a mother, would interfere with education/career). This makes one wonder about national poll data that cites that 46% of Americans are pro-choice. Although they identify themselves as pro-choice, our survey results suggest (no, it’s not a representative sampling – I know) they would oppose the vast majority of abortions that take place in our country.

Finally, and as expected, there was a consistent pattern of moral relativism. People felt that abortion was wrong for many of the reasons that abortions are done, but weren’t as willing to claim that abortion should be made illegal for those same reasons. It’s the “I’m personally against abortions done for X reason, but I don’t believe we should make it illegal” position.

Comments

[kpolo]

In your next questionnaire, you should include a question specifically targeting the relativistic response:

"Do you feel murder should be illegal, since some feel it should be legal and it is wrong to impose your view on others?"

[aheathen]

The “I’m personally against abortions done for X reason, but I don’t believe we should make it illegal” view makes more sense when you consider that many seem to view carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term as a *heroic act.* (As opposed to not-murdering-someone being a *basic obligation*)

I've heard many pro-choice advocates say something along the following:
"It doesn't matter whether abortion ends a life. By making abortion illegal, you're giving the fetus a right that no one else is given: the right to use someone's body without their consent."

With that view, saying you're "personally against abortion" because you would "be heroic and carry to term" but you "want it still legal" makes more sense.

[aheathen]

... in other words, not having an abortion is on part with giving your brother (or born child) one of your kidneys. It's heroic, sure, and many would even say it's expected ... but not required.

[David Hawkins]

aheathen,

>>"With that view, saying you're "personally against abortion" because you would "be heroic and carry to term" but you "want it still legal" makes more sense."

When you say "makes more sense," do mean it is logically more acceptable and appealing to human nature?

Or that it now juxtaposes the social need to stay on the fence (i.e. political correctness) with one's personal comfort zone...so they can avoid making a decision, picking a side, and thus risk offending someone?

[aheathen]

David,

I'm saying that there are good (logical) and bad (illogical) pro-choice arguments ... same goes for pro-life arguments.

Bad pro-choice arguments:
"Trust women!"
(slogan)
"It's just a blob of tissue"
(blatantly false)

Bad pro-life arguments:
"Don't punish the baby because you couldn't keep your legs shut!"
(ad hominem)
"Don't abort your child when you could make an infertile couple happy through adoption."
(the happiness of infertile couples has no bearing on the morality of abortion)

Good pro-choice argument:
"By making abortion illegal, you're giving the fetus a right that no one else is given: the right to use someone's body without their consent."
The violinist argument, which I'll just link: http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

When I say "makes more sense" I mean that it is more logically coherent. Like I illustrated above, it could be that a person who says they "personally would not get an abortion but think it should remain legal" may not be guilty of moral relativism.

[Naturallawyer]

I am inclined to agree with aheathen that it is not moral relativism to claim "I'm personally opposed to X, and X is morally wrong, but X should still be legal." There are lots of things that are morally wrong that we all would claim should be kept legal (for example, cheating on a test in school is wrong, but not illegal; likewise lying to your parents is wrong but not illegal).

There is actually some difficulty in claiming that simple murder must, as a matter of morality, be criminally punished. If 20 people are on a desert island and one murders another, are the rest required to form a government and punish the murderer? What if it's 50 or 100 people? Although it isn't necessarily a slam-dunk, I do think that is morally required when feasible (government is "natural" for social humans, so we should set up government under any circumstances where it is reasonable to do so, and we all know murder must be punished).

Because I am pro-life and believe that the unborn human is worthy of protection in itself as a human, I think abortion should be illegal. But it is not enough to claim, "it's wrong, therefore it should be illegal." We need more.

BTW, aheathen, the problem with the violinist argument is that it ignores the duties of parents to their offspring. The law may not require a parent to donate a kidney, but it certainly requires that a parent do no harm to the child. Abortion isn't a mere failure to provide a heroic act; it is an intentional homicide through an interference with the child's life. Moreover, donating a kidney may be heroic in that it is quite unusual, and in fact was impossible until recent years. Child-birth is about as ordinary as it gets in the history of human events. Abortion is more akin to setting one's infant on the kitchen counter and letting it starve to death than it is to failing to donate a kidney. It may be painful to have to go out and work for enough food to feed two mouths, but a failure to take this quite normal step is both immoral and illegal.

[aheathen]

Naturallawyer,

"the problem with the violinist argument is that it ignores the duties of parents to their offspring."

I totally agree. My point was just that there are arguments with logical substance and "arguments" that are just sloganeering.

"Abortion is more akin to setting one's infant on the kitchen counter and letting it starve to death"

Abortion is much worse than that if you consider the actual surgical procedures. Even "good" pro-choice arguments rely on the idea that abortion is merely separating the fetus from it's mother, where the reality is that they are dismembered limb from limb in order to be removed.