I think abortion is a symptom of a deeper cause - not understanding what the image of God, what it is or what it means. If church leaders stopped preaching against abortion on a political level and started preaching on the image of God would we see a shift in our beliefs, not just on abortion, but on justice and what it means to care for and love one another. Would we perhaps be a relieving message compared to the culture around us? Just some thoughts as I muse over the image of God lately.
I think this topic is one where the Party Leadership is really out of step with the opinions of the public and even their own party. Multiple state travel for abortion bans have been proposed in Republican-held states (and some enacted for minors) as well as much saber-rattling about using other legal machinations to charge people that leave their state for that healthcare. Though this may be cooling in the minds of the people; it's still hot in the Republican Primary elections and in the captured legislatures.
And just a note that "on demand" is really insufficient language to describe requesting a healthcare procedure. There are ethical considerations of the care providers that are part of that equation.
Here's something that I struggle with mightily in everything I write.
I want it to be entertaining. And I want it to be technically accurate. It's impossible for it to be both.
For instance writing the phrase "X% of X group supports a woman's right to obtain an abortion if she wants one for any reason" is technically accurate.
Using that exact same phrase 3-4 more times in the next two paragraphs is not at all entertaining. So, I slip into a much more streamlined, but less accurate "abortion on demand."
I think the "always legal" answers have the point of making it "...like any other healthcare procedure"; sure, there are process, provider, and ethical considerations around whether you get an antibiotic when you ask for one but it generally stays out of the hands of whether politics says you can get one or not.
Hey Ryan, love the work. I'm curious about how categorization works in this data, particularly around race. Can you tease out what "Black Protestant" means vs "non-white evangelicals"?
There was an article on this on Religion in Public 6 years ago, but I'm curious how the data has changed since then, especially with the introduction of the "non-white evangelical" category.
I wish we could take a lesson here that Federalism is actually a really good idea in the context of a vast pluralistic country.
On the "abortion for any reason" question: I've always wondered if many people misinterpret this.
Otherwise you're left with the mathematical certainty that at least 8% of the survey believes that Abortion should be allowed for ANY reason, and it should also be allowed ONLY for rape, incest, life of mother. Which makes me wonder if there are some additional percentage points that agree with the first proposition, and yet also have other limitations in mind.
I wonder if specific wording in different surveys minimizes this effect, or if it's a sort of Lizardman Constant. I looked up the specific wording in the CES. It's:
>>
“Which one of the following comes closest to your view?”
Abortion should always be legal
Abortion should be legal most of the time but with some restrictions
Abortion should be illegal most of the time but with some exceptions
Abortion should always be illegal
>>
My guess is some people see the first choice, don't really look closely to the other choices, and take it to mean "We as a society should never ban abortion for all cases. So even though I think abortion should only be allowed under specific circumstances, I agree it should always be legal." "Always" here meaning "even 1000 years from now", not "under all circumstances."
Re: In fact, a whole lot of groups that are traditionally considered ‘pro-life’ moved in the opposite direction.
Well, Christian ethics does allow deadly force in self defense, so abortion to save a woman's life should not be problematic. I always marvel that there are as many people wanting to curtail even necessary abortions-- are they dogmatic pacifists in other matters? I very much doubt it.
Re: Finally, what about restricting a woman’s ability to leave a state with an abortion ban to travel to another state for an abortion procedure? This idea is incredibly unpopular, for what it’s worth.
Unsurprising as such a move would represent a denial of very basic liberty and a move toward totalitarianism.
Getting people to believe abortion is good was a fairly constant media story for decades. Recently the media has diversified into preaching about many more "morals." So abortion is just 1 of many things including: We should be racist against certain groups in order to have equal outcomes, we should stop using fossil fuels, we should castrate and mutilate confused people because it will make them happy, we should hate Israel - it's just too many things to gain traction on.
I think abortion is a symptom of a deeper cause - not understanding what the image of God, what it is or what it means. If church leaders stopped preaching against abortion on a political level and started preaching on the image of God would we see a shift in our beliefs, not just on abortion, but on justice and what it means to care for and love one another. Would we perhaps be a relieving message compared to the culture around us? Just some thoughts as I muse over the image of God lately.
I think this topic is one where the Party Leadership is really out of step with the opinions of the public and even their own party. Multiple state travel for abortion bans have been proposed in Republican-held states (and some enacted for minors) as well as much saber-rattling about using other legal machinations to charge people that leave their state for that healthcare. Though this may be cooling in the minds of the people; it's still hot in the Republican Primary elections and in the captured legislatures.
And just a note that "on demand" is really insufficient language to describe requesting a healthcare procedure. There are ethical considerations of the care providers that are part of that equation.
Per the last point.
Here's something that I struggle with mightily in everything I write.
I want it to be entertaining. And I want it to be technically accurate. It's impossible for it to be both.
For instance writing the phrase "X% of X group supports a woman's right to obtain an abortion if she wants one for any reason" is technically accurate.
Using that exact same phrase 3-4 more times in the next two paragraphs is not at all entertaining. So, I slip into a much more streamlined, but less accurate "abortion on demand."
An economy of words is an admirable goal!
I think the "always legal" answers have the point of making it "...like any other healthcare procedure"; sure, there are process, provider, and ethical considerations around whether you get an antibiotic when you ask for one but it generally stays out of the hands of whether politics says you can get one or not.
Hey Ryan, love the work. I'm curious about how categorization works in this data, particularly around race. Can you tease out what "Black Protestant" means vs "non-white evangelicals"?
There was an article on this on Religion in Public 6 years ago, but I'm curious how the data has changed since then, especially with the introduction of the "non-white evangelical" category.
I wish we could take a lesson here that Federalism is actually a really good idea in the context of a vast pluralistic country.
On the "abortion for any reason" question: I've always wondered if many people misinterpret this.
Otherwise you're left with the mathematical certainty that at least 8% of the survey believes that Abortion should be allowed for ANY reason, and it should also be allowed ONLY for rape, incest, life of mother. Which makes me wonder if there are some additional percentage points that agree with the first proposition, and yet also have other limitations in mind.
I wonder if specific wording in different surveys minimizes this effect, or if it's a sort of Lizardman Constant. I looked up the specific wording in the CES. It's:
>>
“Which one of the following comes closest to your view?”
Abortion should always be legal
Abortion should be legal most of the time but with some restrictions
Abortion should be illegal most of the time but with some exceptions
Abortion should always be illegal
>>
My guess is some people see the first choice, don't really look closely to the other choices, and take it to mean "We as a society should never ban abortion for all cases. So even though I think abortion should only be allowed under specific circumstances, I agree it should always be legal." "Always" here meaning "even 1000 years from now", not "under all circumstances."
They actually changed the setup of the abortion question. In the earlier survey it was the single question you have above.
In the more recent versions it's a battery of usually five questions. You have to respond individually to each one.
Helpful analysis.
Re: In fact, a whole lot of groups that are traditionally considered ‘pro-life’ moved in the opposite direction.
Well, Christian ethics does allow deadly force in self defense, so abortion to save a woman's life should not be problematic. I always marvel that there are as many people wanting to curtail even necessary abortions-- are they dogmatic pacifists in other matters? I very much doubt it.
Re: Finally, what about restricting a woman’s ability to leave a state with an abortion ban to travel to another state for an abortion procedure? This idea is incredibly unpopular, for what it’s worth.
Unsurprising as such a move would represent a denial of very basic liberty and a move toward totalitarianism.
What were the corresponding "opinions" amongst Americans in the years before abolition of abortion's twin (slavery)?
Getting people to believe abortion is good was a fairly constant media story for decades. Recently the media has diversified into preaching about many more "morals." So abortion is just 1 of many things including: We should be racist against certain groups in order to have equal outcomes, we should stop using fossil fuels, we should castrate and mutilate confused people because it will make them happy, we should hate Israel - it's just too many things to gain traction on.