Get PJ Media on your Apple

In 10 Years, Will Abortion Be Legal, More Restricted, or Illegal?

The majority of Americans believe abortion to be a "moral wrong."

by
The Editors

Bio

January 22, 2014 - 11:02 am

A new Knights of Columbus/Marist poll shows that 62% of Americans believe that abortion is a “moral wrong.” Fifty-three percent believe that life begins at conception.

Large majorities support restrictions on abortion:

Support for restrictions on abortion includes 79 percent supporting a 24-hour waiting period, 58 percent supporting a woman receiving an ultrasound before her abortion and 80 percent supporting parental notification for underage patients.

Even respondents who identify themselves as strongly pro-choice indicated that they do not believe in unrestricted access to abortions.

Sixty-four percent of strongly pro-choice Americans agreed that a patient should wait 24 hours before an abortion and consult with professionals, 62 percent support parental notification and 68 percent believe doctors who perform abortions should be required to have hospital admitting privileges.

In his statement on the 41st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the president doesn’t mention morals, or restrictions:

Today, as we reflect on the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, we recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle: that every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health. We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her constitutional right to privacy, including the right to reproductive freedom. And we resolve to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children. Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.

Today, the 40th annual March for Life is taking place in Washington, D.C. Ten years from now, will there be a 50th march? Will there be a need for one?

We’ve heard from the pundits and commentators. Now it’s your turn. In 10 years, will abortion be legal, more restricted, or illegal?

Please leave your comment below. If you haven’t registered to comment yet, please take a few seconds to do so.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Right, just like women, who tell us who can be free of unwanted children (women), and who cannot (men).

As for the nation kowtowing to people who perform vile acts, only those who hate our society want that.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
If "everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams", why do men not have the right to "abort" the impact of an unwanted (to them) pregnancy? Maybe the future should be that if the dad doesn't want the consequences of fertilization, he should have the same right to be free of them as the mom?

Or maybe abortion should cease to be a right.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Actually, considering that both wings of the Bipartisan Governing Party have nothing but hatred and contempt for the American people, the beliefs and desires of the American people, and the American Constitution and its basis; I expect it to be mandatory and involuntary at the will of the State.

Subotai Bahadur
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (48)
All Comments   (48)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
So what? Everybody thinks abortion is a moral wrong. It is by definition a failure of planning and adult responsibility. It is spending $300-500 on something that could have been prevented with a $0.50 condom. The question is whether or not someone thinks it is *criminal*.

As to the second, idiotic question, OBVIOUSLY life begins at conception AT LEAST! As anyone with high school (hell even grade school) biology knows, both egg and sperm are alive even prior to conception. From the instant of conception you have a little package of life that unless it does not implant or spontaneously detach from the uterine wall (possibly as much as 50-60% of the time) will inexorably grow into a baby human being. The real question they are trying to obscure is "is a single cell a PERSON?"

If you say "yes" I am moved to ask if we need to examine all heavier than normal periods for microscopic people so we can have really little funerals? If you say I am being silly or insulting, my answer is, "refute me logically." SEE, you cannot do it without reducing the status of your barely multicellular "person".

I could add, "since IUDs prevent implantation of a 'person' under the age of innocence, should just the mother, or both the mother and the doctor be convicted of murder with special circumstances in my home state of Texas and taken away for execution?"

Perhaps I should just keep it to "isn't this really more about punishing mostly young women for breaching your archaic notions of sexual morality, quite justified in the days before contraception, when girls were married before 18, but utterly absurd in our vastly different world, because you think the prohibition came from God?"

That's the truth...come on...we all know it. Just admit it, take your First Amendment medicine, and let's change the debate to late term abortion which is an abomination with a real victim who can scream. We win that one every time.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
"is a single cell a PERSON?"

It's pretty damn close Hornspe! After all the whole person is encoded in the DNA, if not interfered with it will be a person just like you Hornspe.

The truth Hornspe as you know is that abortion exists to make sexual perversion for the powerful possible, they want the right to divorce their wives, to chase their secretaries, to indulge every sexual perversion they please, and to dispense with the unwanted women and offspring when they are inconvenient.

It is self interest which makes some describe unborn children as simply a bunch of cells. And it is a lust for power over others which leads them to demand their pleasures even though they know the price of this sexual indulgence will be many families broken, many unborn killed and many hearts hardened.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
Why haven't anti-abortionists been successful passing a Constitutional amendment banning same? You've had 40 years. If the people are as against it as your surveys say, it should be walk in the park.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
@ForTheWest. "Nobody can do whatever they want with their bodies... "

If you can't make decisions about your own body what rights do you see having that are more worth while? Specifically, please, what rights remain?

Looking at just the history of the 20th century I blanche at the idea of going before a committee. What would qualify them and do you think there would be some political problems as to who gets on The Committee and what if they consistently made decisions you thought were wrong? And if a woman says she will abort herself or travel to where she can receive an abortion, what do you suggest? By the way if you want to roil the country with another racial issue a committee sound like the perfect way to do it.

We are citizens, sovereign individuals. We are "subjects" only at our own discretion. The last century alone gives a world of opportunities to see the difference.

Morality? I assume religion and God. What I've never understood is why the issue isn't seen as being between a woman and God; how do all these other people feel qualified to but in? At long last have we not had enough of people who know exactly what God wants, not just for their own lives but for my life too and everyone else? I will do my own study and draw my own conclusions, thank you very much for your unasked for assistance. Do you not see what rare air we breath to be able to do that?
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Because we live in a society that does not allow us to kill people just because they are inconvenient. If you can kill your baby for being inconvenient, why not your ex? Your parents when they get old and need THEIR diapers changed? Your boss when he fires you? Your sibling who is the favorite in the family? And you should be scared to live in a society that lets you kill your inconvenient baby. What if you got in a car crash tomorrow and were paralyzed from the neck down? What if you suddenly became disfunctionally psychotic? Would you feel safe if you suddenly became dependent on family and society to keep you alive?
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
You are quite correct, you cannot kill a baby, that is the willful murder of a person. If the baby is preborn, say at 35 weeks gestation, that is the willful murder of a person. Pop that little guy out with a dose of PG-E and the likelihood is he will scream his lungs out. The serial killer Kermit Gosnell murdered a lot of those little persons and ought to burn in hell and the state ought to send him there special delivery.

Now, am I to understand that you intend to invest the *same* personhood on small masses of undifferentiated cells in the first week of pregnancy? I am personally 100% on board for charging a doctor who performs an abortion on a 35 week baby with murder (absent some really rare circumstances which would vest a right of self defense on the mother). I am not near willing to do this to anyone who implants an IUD, and unless you are frankly nuts, I would guess neither are you.

So quit obscuring the issue with loaded terms like baby when you may or may not be talking about an actual baby.

I am so sick of this debate being had in the childish way. 55 million people have NOT been killed since Roe v Wade, but a hell of a lot of tiny little people have been, and it is as much due to the "pro lifers" who value punishing young girls for having sex more than they want to protect pre born human beings. The Adults need to talk now. When personhood begins is a question for grown-ups, willing to engage in reasoned debate not name calling (and the radical pro choice, abortion is a secular sacrament people are worse, they actually favor murder).

This is never going to go to a place that saves babies until we admit this is a continuum with "not person" on one side, and "person" on the other.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
"small masses of undifferentiated cells"

Is that how you describe it Hornspe!

How about an astonishing complex and original arrangement of male and female DNA which will never be repeated in the history of the universe.

Every abortion ends the life of a wholly unique miraculous being.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
You chose what to do with your body when you went on your back and opened your legs for a man. Fertlized eggs can be frozen and implanted in a willing womb. They are independent from scratch. If I, driving across a dessert with a child, have a vehicular breakdown and must walk, by the rule of "I can do whatever I want with my body" I can leave the child to perish in the car instead of carrying it to safety.

That disposes of the utterly selfish, I'm-all-that-counts, "I can do whatever I want with my body" "rule".

Now about getting around the law by leaving the country? Same thing as pedophiles do. You are just spouting selfish rhetoric.

About the humbling experience of having to go before a committee: Horrors, why should anything so noble as a woman have to submit to law! If you can't face such a committee you mustn't need an abortion very badly.

But if you must have the right to exercise a choice, then before you choose to keep your baby, the father is free of having to support it unless he signs on before the choice is made.

That would be to play the selfish pro-male role, the same selfishness implied in the very word "feminism".

So you can be against civilization and keep demanding the right to abort a baby or enslave a man, or you can grow up and start being responsible to something greater than yourself.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Why hasn't "abortion" morphed into a racial issue? It would have had the Republicans advocated abortion on demand.
The lefties want equality of outcomes. Look at the disproportionate number of abortions that blacks have! That disparity can only be explained by racism!
The dems have an age old hatred for blacks and do nothing that does not keep them under control.
We need to start publishing abortion figures with racial breakdowns and pointing out that the dems want to kill more black & brown babies.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Can't believe how many commenters think abortion will become more restricted.

You're dreaming folks.

The trends in GB, Europe and Australia are towards post birth abortion, basically killing a child after it is born as foreshadowed in the writings of Princeton philosopher Peter Singer. It is also towards euthanasia, the killing of the elderly or anyone who wants it.

There are so many reasons as to why this is so it is impossible to cover them in a blog, but perhaps the main reason is the collapse in Christian faith and the replacement of that faith by secular authorities and science.

There is simply no limit to the evil men will do to themselves and others especially the defenceless such as children or the elderly when given moral authority to do so by others, such as the state by its organs of influence like the press and edcuational institutions.

For those who are historically aware I invite you to ponder the past, the babies burnt alive to Baal, the wives slaughtered with their husbands, the other tribe eaten by their neigbours, the castrated slaves and bound feet of women not to mention the recent mass bombing of civilians in war in Europe and Japan, the grotesque and deformed bodies, their very chains tatooed into their skin. The list is endless.

I am sick of the fantasies that we are different. Look around you, the grostesque is everywhere, moral squalor is everywhere, violent indulgent fantasies abound and everywhere families are divided.

The only difference between the past and now is that instead of violent coercive punishment and various polytheistic state sanctioned mythologies we have modern marketing, education and the mass media.

They are in your head folks and always telling you what an angel you are, what a saint, what a hero. Want to betray your wife, you're a hero you can do no wrong, its really her fault, its for the best to keep yourself happy. It's a lie. Want to watch pornography, hurts no one else what can be wrong with it, another lie. Want to abort an unwanted child, it's really just a bunch of cells, it will interfere with my career, another lie.

This show isn't stopping all you fantasists out there it's just beginning.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
"[...] the main reason is the collapse in Christian faith and the replacement of that faith by secular authorities and science."

No the problem is not science. It is materialism, which is a very different thing. Science studies matter. Materialism is the non-scientific philosophy that there is nothing else but matter (counting energy as a form of matter). Anyone who opposes science deserves to lose.

See David Bentley Hart [http://www.amazon.com/The-Experience-David-Bentley-Hart-ebook/dp/B00E64EH0K] for a read that might buck you up as well as clarify the difference.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
>>>The trends in GB, Europe and Australia are towards post birth abortion, basically killing a child after it is born as foreshadowed in the writings of Princeton philosopher Peter Singer. It is also towards euthanasia, the killing of the elderly or anyone who wants it.<<<

In support of this, today I saw a news report from Belgium. They already have "voluntary" euthanasia, of dubious volition by the person dying. There is a new statute, about to become law, that extends that to those under 18 who are disabled or otherwise have a lesser quality of life as judged by the state. In theory, parental permission is required. Yeah, right.

I reference the Nazi German program Aktion T4. And this poster:

http://tinyurl.com/kwnv4n7

The text translates:"60,000 Reichsmark is what this person suffering from a hereditary defect costs the People's community during his lifetime. Fellow citizen, that is your money too. Read '[A] New People', the monthly magazine of the Bureau for Race Politics of the NSDAP.".

Anybody think that this would not be updated with an Obamacare logo?

Subotai Bahadur
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Many of you say that use of abortion will be more restricted. That is your hope. It is also mine. But I disagree that this will come to pass; in fact, I expect the opposite.

The reason is the present medical bioethics, which were becoming entrenched long before Obamacare. Most abortions don't take place in mills such as Planned Parenthood. Do the math: out of 1.2 million each year in the US, only about 350,000 take place in the mills (primarily Planned Parenthood).

So where do the other 850,000 take place? In hospitals and in clinics associated with hospitals. What happens? A pregnant woman gets routine prenatal care including tests on the fetus. After the test results arrive, the doctor says, "Your fetus has Down's syndrome [or name many, many other diseases or chronic conditions or deformities instead], but we can take care of this now by 'terminating' the pregnancy." Most women and couples go for that option now. By numerous recent estimates, over 90% of Down's fetuses are "terminated". And add to that high percentages for all those other conditions.

Today's bioethics strongly pushes the concept of degrees of "worthiness" or "quality" of life and of futile care, or waste of medical resources. And just wait until autism-spectrum disorders become detectable in a prenatal test. You'll see abortion rates skyrocket. The word is coming in about how many children with extreme forms of autism become ever more violent, dangerous, and uncontrollable at ever earlier ages for reasons unknown. No one wants to have to deal with that. Terminate!

We may even see attempts to mandate abortion for certain types of fetal abnormalities or test results, especially under the influence of Obamacare, but this could happen without that factor. Gotta save the system $$, you see. Any restrictions attempted on abortion are likely to exempt those for reasons doctors approve, so don't expect legislation to be of much help.

In all, I hope for far fewer abortions, but expect to see far more. And the conventional medical profession, not abortion mills, will drive this big increase.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Medical technology has advanced since Roe v. Wade. I think a lot of people now know the “out of the womb” viability time-frame is getting shorter. Also, with sonograms and the like, a woman can “see” what is developing inside her.

As a single man with three sisters and lots of female friends, over the years I’ve gotten myself into many long dragged-out arguments. It always boiled down to this: FEMALE: It’s her body, it’s her right and it’s her decision in regards to the pregnancy… period. My counter from the MALE perspective: OK, I agree, with the following caveat: It’s her RIGHT…and it’s her RESPONSIBILITY! It’s her body; therefore, she is RESPONSIBLE for any outcome (pregnancy). No more “he got her pregnant” (with the exception of rape). Basically, without a legal contractual agreement between the two parties (man and women), the unwanted pregnancy is the responsibility of the female. It’s her body, under her "sole control”. Right? No more child support from the male that came from sexual liaisons (pregnancy) outside of marriage. And even in marriage… I would behoove the husband and wife draw up a legal document stating their stand on pregnancy/children. More than once, I’ve seen an “I’m pregnant” in a marriage that was on the rocks. But before the troubles got to the breaking point, the married couple used contraceptives’. The future baby was used as an anchor by the woman to try and keep them together… Unfortunately, I never saw that succeed.

From my moniker, you can tell, I’m retired Navy. I gave my junior Sailors (male and female) a stark and frank birds-and-the-bees training session every year (and again at the first foreign port visit when going on ship deployment). My focus was… no matter what the prospective partner looked or acted like, you are for all intensive purposes, having sex with all their previous partners. They knew I wasn’t a prude… stay a virgin until your married type. For the most part, it was successful. But, I did have one Sailor that after a deployment came up HIV positive. He confided that he picked up a hooker during our port visit in Thailand and had unprotected sex.

The point being, in addition to the emotional tsunami created by an “unwanted” pregnancy”, where is the RESPONSIBILITY portion (on both parties)? With the outbreak of HIV in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, I cannot understand why the abortion rate did not go way down… more than “significantly”, but a lot. Even now, putting aside HIV, the other STD rates are going up, and I would think, using common sense, unprotected sex would become an aberration. Silly me, that would be using COMMON SENSE.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
If "everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams", why do men not have the right to "abort" the impact of an unwanted (to them) pregnancy? Maybe the future should be that if the dad doesn't want the consequences of fertilization, he should have the same right to be free of them as the mom?

Or maybe abortion should cease to be a right.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm against abortion. However, I find it strange that a woman can choose whether or not to have the baby, but the father has no say whether he gets saddled with 18 years of child support.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Women fighting for abortion because, "it's my body, I can do with it what I want", are liars. They are fighting to be able to choose to be free from the responsibility for a child. That's what O's statement, quoted above is all about. Well, it's my body, I, by the same principle can choose to do what I want with it -i.e. not slave to pay for an unwanted child.

Actually, I think that abortion is killing. I am just demonstrating the hypocritical, self serving nature of all the pro-abortion rhetoric. Nobody can do whatever they want with their bodies, but if a woman insists that the fetus is a horrifying little excresence that she cannot live with, a medical committee could determine whether she is actually having a problem with the bearing of the child, as opposed to the problem that 99% of them have, which is a problem with being responsible for a child, and grant her an abortion. But abortion as a right? Only for pigs (remember "male chauvinistic pig"?).

Nope, O's fine words about "opportunities to fulfill ... dreams" goes for both sexes. A woman with a right to have an abortion can do without the father's support if he will not sign on, and that will just be part of the information she has when she decides whether or not to exercise her "right".

People might object to my use of words here: "vile, gender bigot, pig, etc". I am just using words whose use in "debate" was pioneered by the left, and I am pointedly using them. Any word that the MSM media helps spew out into the public as a legitimate word against Christians, patriots, tea partiers, etc, is a word legitimate to use against the left.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Maybe the future should be that if the dad doesn't want the consequences of fertilization, he should have the same right to be free of them as the mom?"

If he can get pregnant, sure. Meantime, as RvW has established, the decision rests with the woman & her doctor. Full disclosure: I advocate choice electively for only very early on; I do not support the late-term elective procedure whatsoever.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well since he can't get pregnant and doesn't have children, why should he have any responsibility towards them at all? If you get out of decades of responsibility through the clever little slogan "I can do what I want with my body", but men are automatically enslaved, you sure aren't for "the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill ... dreams" for everyone.

You are just a gender bigot.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
First tri-meter abortion will remain the settled law of the land. However,
a growing groundswell of antipathy toward late-term and partial-birth
abortions makes it possible that these 2 procedures might be done
away with in a generation. As far as overturning Roe v. Wade, it is
highly unlikely. In cases of rape, incest ( often which is rape ) and saving the life of the mother, very few people will want to outlaw
abortion in those areas.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Why rape and incest if abortion is killing a baby? Surely the baby isn't to blame? Oh wait...it isn't about the baby, it's about sex before marriage being wrong and in the case of rape and incest the girl is blameless so she doesn't need to be "punished."

Let's make abortion totally illegal except for cases of rape and incest...now since a conviction takes more than nine months, we'll have to allow it if the prosecutor brings charges...no unintended consequences possible there...

The fact is, late term abortion is a horror, and this comment is probably true, but we won't get firm laws until we engage this debate without calling every cell a baby or pretending that abortion is something other than a complete failure of adult responsibility that should bring shame on everyone involved...even if it is legal in the First Trimester.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
The majority of Americans believe abortion to be a "moral wrong."

Well, they certainly don't vote that way.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
Its abortion for thee, not for me.

"You can kill your children if you want to, I won't impose my morals on you."

Ridiculous.
31 weeks ago
31 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All