According to the latest Gallup polls, public opinion on issues of sexual and reproductive freedom has become steadily more liberal.
In 1977, Americans were evenly split on whether gay sex should be legal. Now they support its legality by a 2-to-1 ratio. In 1996, the country opposed same-sex marriage by 68 to 27 percent. Now it’s a dead heat. In 2002, a 50-to-45-percent plurality said it was morally wrong to have a baby outside of marriage. Now a 54-to-42-percent majority says it’s acceptable.
Birth control, as an issue of private morality, is a nonissue: 89 percent of Americans say it’s OK.
On issue after issue, the polls have moved to the left. But not on abortion. In 1995, Gallup found that 56 percent of Americans identified themselves as pro-choice, while 33 percent identified themselves as pro-life. That gap closed within three years, zigzagged a bit, and by last year stood at 49 to 45 percent, a narrow pro-choice plurality. In this month’s poll, however, 50 percent of respondents call themselves pro-life. Only 41 percent call themselves pro-choice.
Advocates of abortion rights, responding to the Gallup report, point out that calling yourself pro-life doesn’t mean you support every restriction. The “vast majority of Americans continues to support legal abortion in all or certain circumstances,” observes NARAL Pro-choice America, adding that “other independent polling shows little change.” NARAL cites data from the Pew Research Center showing that most Americans still think abortion should be legal in most cases. Planned Parenthood offers the same rebuttal: “A majority of Americans still believe abortion should remain a safe and legal medical procedure for a woman to consider if and when she needs it, and these fundamental views have held steady for more than a decade.”
But that’s the puzzle. At best, support for abortion is barely holding its ground, way below support for contraception, while approval of gay sex and gay marriage are soaring. Something about abortion continues to alienate people who are willing to take a more liberal view of birth control and homosexuality. What is it?
Pro-choice groups see abortion as an issue of women’s rights, reproductive freedom and respecting privacy. But look at long-term data from the General Social Survey, a multi-decade project of the National Opinion Research Center. The survey shows that over the past 40 years, public opinion has shifted in the pro-choice direction on all three of those themes. And yet, contrary to the pro-choice inference, it hasn’t shifted on abortion.
From 1972 to 2006, the percentage of survey respondents who said premarital sex was “not wrong at all” rose from 28 to 46. The percentage who said gay sex was “not wrong at all” tripled, from 11 to 32 percent. And from the mid-1970s to the late 1990s — the years during which the survey asked about women’s rights — opinions moved clearly to the left.
The percentage of respondents who approved of a married woman earning money even if her husband could support her increased by 15 points. The percentage who disagreed that women should stay home and let men run the country rose by 20 points. The percentage who said it was OK for a wife to refuse to have children even if her husband wanted them also increased by 15 points. Eighty-two percent of respondents took that position, affirming a woman’s right to make her own reproductive decisions.
But the abortion numbers didn’t follow. From the 1970s to 2006, the percentage of General Social Survey respondents who said it should be possible for a woman to get a legal abortion shifted two points to the left in cases where the woman “wants it for any reason,” six points to the right in cases of a “strong chance of serious defect in the baby,” and seven points to the right in cases where the family “cannot afford any more children.” By 2006, the last year these questions were asked, only a minority supported legal abortion in the “any reason” or “can’t afford” scenarios.
The British Social Attitudes survey shows the same pattern. From the 1980s to the 2000s, public opinion shifted 20 points to the left on premarital sex, 22 points to the left on gay sex, 24 points to the left on whether women should stay home to care for young children, 27 points to the left on whether wives should leave breadwinning to their husbands, and 30 points to the left on whether lesbian couples deserved equal adoption rights. But it shifted 12 points to the right on abortion “if there is a strong chance of a serious defect in the baby” and 13 points to the right on abortion if the family “cannot afford any more children.”
Polls don’t settle what’s right and wrong. But they do challenge our assumptions about the structure of beliefs. When public opinion turns toward gay marriage without abandoning fidelity and family formation, it calls into question our fear that extending marriage to same-sex couples threatens the institution.
And when public opinion turns toward reproductive freedom and equal rights for women but continues to oppose abortion, it punctures our dismissal of pro-life sentiment as a vestige of right-wing sexism. Spin and sound bites won’t make the evidence go away. Sooner or later, you’ll have to face it.
I suspect what we have here is Saletan committing a category error: abortion isn’t marriage (gay or otherwise) and there’s no reason for attitudes about the one to track with attitudes about the other. “Liberalisation” describes changes, it doesn’t cause them.
Agreed. Most people assess issues on an individual basis, they don’t accept positions because of its liberal vs. conservative label.
Do you think that they are possibly two different issues? What are you smoking?
Truly!. Abortion takes a life… I am pro choice, but my own personal choice would be against it.
Gay marriage…why not?
Both will inevitably reduce population over time,lowering the number of liberal/progressive voters. I may have to rethink these issues.
Hmm, sounds like that would be a fine example of Evolution/ Natural selection, I dig it.
No’it’s not but you would know that if you understood Evolution/Natural Selection.
Interesting thought. It raises the possibility and hope that cultural degradation may be self correcting.
Hmmmm….. homosexual children are born from heterosexual parents, how would SSM marriage stop that?
Your question doesn’t make sense, because no one has suggested that homosexual children aren’t borne from heterosexual parents.
I think it’s because of your somewhat agreeing with Marshall that ‘both will…. reduce population’. Gays aren’t created, they’re born at the same ratio that they’ve always been. Until the ‘gay gene’ can be identified in a fetus, then aborted because of it, their population won’t diminish. Does pbmann’s question make some sense now?
Thanks for trying to explain my question to bandbox but I think he justs posts and forgets what he posted to.
No, I don’t forget my posts, but I don’t spend all day in front of the computer either. Anyway, I’m back for a few minutes.
Frankly, no. His question doesn’t, but the things you’ve raised about my response to Marshall’s post do. If it is true that all homosexuals are born that way and don’t become homosexuals, then we can probably assume that the ratio of homosexuals to heterosexuals will remain the same. If, however, some homosexuals acquire their sexual orientation as a preference over time and same sex marriage is legalized, it will send the message that homosexual conduct is perfectly ok and that society sanctions unnatural marriages, thus encouraging some people who are on the cusp, and otherwise would not, to become homosexual, thereby increasing the ratio of homosexuals to heterosexuals and giving homosexuals greater voting power and influence over society’s morals and mores, resulting in further cultural degradation and diminishing the chances of self correction.
“Your question doesn’t make sense, because no one has suggested that homosexual children aren’t borne from heterosexual parents.”
This is the statement that I responded to, so I can’t understand or follow your convoluted train of thought in your reply to me, or the likelihood of your paranoid scenario ever having the least effect on the voting block.
Unnatural Unshnatual! According to who? The churches teachings of the last 1800 years? It’s for legal rights, and the churches don’t come into play in legal matters in this country (too much). Heck, even Julias Ceasar was known in his time as “Every woman’s husband and every man’s wife”! People should get over themselves and move on. It’s no skin off our crinklesacs.
You seem to have such an emotional and hysterical investment in homosexuality that it’s getting in the way of any reasoning power you may have.
Now thats calling the kettle black! He doesn’t sound like he’s emotional,just realistic. it’s you that sounds emotional about nothing that affects you.
Many in the homosexual movement has become hysterical. Most of its leaders have adopted a policy of incrementalism, whereby they take a gradual approach to winning its acceptance in society. For many of its less managed members, they can’t wait for the day when everyone accepts their behavior as normal and natural, so they essentially have declared war on anyone who doesn’t accept their way of life. I expect to see them become much more militant in the future, especially if they receive another setback at the ballot box.
It isn’t accepting a way of life. It’s the legal rights for gawd’s sake.
What is so difficult with that that it has to be stretched to your idea of what it’s really about, not what some gay extremists are shouting about? It’s about nothing more than getting on the same health care policy or his/her family coming in and cleaning the house out when one dies. Just a couple of things that we take for granted. Really nothing more for the average couple. And don’t say that a civil union does all that. They don’t reach the Federal level for one thing, and often not the State level. If you don’t know what that entails, may I suggest you check it out?
I’m sorry, but it just isn’t the same thing as a normal marriage. If two people are asexual and live together, should we ask them to get married to deal with all of the logistical issues? Get a power of attorney for goodness’ sake! You can get virtually all of the “benefits” of marriage through other legal means, whether it is through a will or POA. And if they can’t have kids, then it is likely that both can work in a homosexual relationship, so they should both have access to health care coverage. I just think the homosexual community has overreached by pushing the gay marriage thing as they have.
“Virtually all of the benefits are available”? It’s apparent you haven’t been listening to their side of the argument.
1-Two private health ins plans are far more expensive than a family plan.2-Rights of survivorship at the FEDERAL level are not available at all: military or gov employee pensions/death benefits, etc. ad nauseam (previously stated and obviously not read/comprehended). 3- POA, health care proxy, wills (always contested for years in probate court by the family), who gets control of the deceased’s body, all these and more legal wrangling that we don’t even have to think about and take for granted.I don’t understand why you can’t understand these simple concepts of equality (NOT special rights). More likely you just choose not to.
You couldn’t get these things in a civil union?
Nope! Civil unions are all written differently with the # of benefits varying, and none are recognized at the Federal level.
If the gay rights movement had gone after civil unions at the federal level, which many on both sides would support, instead of swinging for the fences and going directly for gay marriage, then you would probably now have all of those benefits at the federal level.
Once again, since no states can agree to what rights to include in civil unions, then the Feds could never decide on a national level. Look how long it took to repeal ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’.
Oh, and can you stop referring to me as getting any of these benefits? I’m a married father of 2 college grads. :)
I’m sitting back without a care of anything that doesn’t affect my life or my pocket. After living with SSM in Mass for close to a decade, even the Chicken Littles realized that the sky didn’t fall. It would seem that you’re the one getting hysterical beyond the point of reasoning about something that will never ever affect you or your tiny world. Maybe eyevabigun is right. Your protestation is just a bit…. :)
Unnatural according to nature. The words “homosexuality” and “natural” are mutually exclusive, since nature is all about the creation and continuity of life. Since homosexuality cannot produce new life, it is therefore unnatural.
Isn’t that just following the animal in us and not free thinking? Caterpillars do because they don’t have free will. How about the recent stories on the news about a penguin at a zoo that prefers his boyfriend? You know, the one they put with a female and ended up losing weight so they put him back where he was happy? That continuity of procreation? It happens even to what we consider to have dominion over. Scat happens.
I heard that the female penguin actually had some kind of infection, and the natural instincts of the male penguin made him leery of her. Also, he kept losing weight because she was reportedly a lousy cook.
As the Pillsbury dough girl said to the Pillsbury dough boy one night: Not tonite! I have a yeast infection! That kind of silliness? :)
Yes, exactly!
So a heterosexual couple who meets and marries in their 60s…”unnatural?”
Can their sexual relationship produce children? Possibly, although most likely not. Their marriage is most likely to satisfy their religious beliefs that a man and a woman should be married if they are going to have a sexual relationship. I know a couple in their 60’s who are both divorced and are living together, with no intention of getting married. Since their marriage will not likely produce children, they have decided not to get married. They don’t have religious beliefs that would encourage them to seek marriage, so they don’t intend to marry.
So the ones on the cusp will go over to the other side? I’ll bet that your the type that used to come over sometimes smelling of beer and deisel fuel at 10pm wearing a wedding band for a few minutes of ‘visiting’. Back in my time, I used to have quite a stable of regulars drop by in the cold north.. And I bet they vote what they want behind the curtain, no matter whether they come out eventually or not. :-0
Are you the one we were warned about at the Caribou Bypass rest area all those years ago?
Ah yes, the homosexual’s argument of last resort. But you’d be wrong in my case.
Snawt an argument. Just the truth. I lived it. Back in the day, I would see the married gas station and body shop owners together at a bar in our burg many times and usually talking trash about everything redneck. one night they tried to pick me up! Didn’t do groups tho – too dangerous.
“Both will inevitably reduce population over time,lowering the number of liberal/progressive voters. I may have to rethink these issues.” Larry Marshall Jr.
“Interesting thought. It raises the possibility and hope that cultural degradation may be self correcting.” bandbox in reply to Larry Marshall jr.
Does my question make more sense now?
No, both will not reduce population over time.
Gay people are not going to procreate whether SSM is made legal or not and straight people are not going to marry people of the same sex just because they can.
The number of people who want to criminalize abortion has not changed. The number of people who want to preserve the right of a woman to obtain one has not changed. There has been an increase in those who have personal reservations about abortion, but this has not translated into any increased desire to make it illegal.
Why are we becoming more liberal on homosexuality but not abortion?
Maybe the gay community knows they need the voters, and they can’t produce them themselves?
Like there is somehow a shortage of people on this earth?
Maybe it’s because abortion kills and SSM doesn’t hurt anybody?
Or maybe you’re right and gays aren’t born; they’re indoctrinated by a weird old uncle? Or could it be the attraction to a lifetime of derision? Hmmm? Ya, that’s the ticket.
Why? Because there is no comparison in being homosexual & murdering an innocent in the womb. And many of the same people who condone abortion get all bent out of shape when a convicted murderer faces the death penalty. Go figure.
Fetuses = VERY important , Child= Cut those socialist programs….HYPOCRITES !!!
Because our intolerance towards homosexuals was based upon lies and distortion. As gay people gain their equal rights, they come out (straight people are already “out”) and we realize they’re good people who are parts of our families, friendships and work lives. All those lies begin to fade away and we’re left with the simple fact that they’re just like us and they just want the same thing as we do.
Another article by liberal “Slate.” Where do the numbers come from? We know that any number can be pulled out of thin air by the liberals, and they tout it often enough until people begin to believe them. The Roe v. Wade decision was based on a falsehood that was repeated often enough to become the law of the land, and even the Supremes could not figure that out in 1973. Now Norma McCorvey, the duped young woman, is spending her days trying to rectify what 5 justices decided in her behalf, based on the lies of the “get rid of the babies in the womb” lawyers. It is aborticide–the killing of the unborn, and over 57 million became “so much garbage” since that infamous decision.
Its kind of odd, but these two actually make sense that they go hand in hand. On one hand, more people are understanding of homosexuality and are even changing their thinking towards gay marriage and families that have same sex parents. Considering that same sex parents often adopt, unwanted children all over the nation are being adopted and finding good homes. This would mean that women that once aborted could sacrifice enough to go through the labor and then place their child with a loving family, meaning more people are now against abortion. I believe that most people would agree that abortion should never be used or allowed as a form of birth control. I also still believe that in the isntance of life threatening harm to the mother, or in sever cases of rape or abuse, people believe that abortion is still a viable option.
Good one, Jeff. An even keel opinion for a change here.
Many Western cultures didn’t even name them until the Baptism because of the high mortality rate.
if two people love each other its hard to argue that their love damages society. for a long time certain religious factions promoted various erroneous beliefs about lbgt people that made them seem dangerous. this has all been dis-proven by science, and so there is no argument about why they should be apart.
abortion is very tricky. it would seem that while the church has always opposed abortion, the reasons have varied somewhat over the years. the early Christian church didn’t baptize premature /still born births because there was a belief that the soul wasn’t completely formed until the child was. prohibitions against contraceptives and abortive s garnered support because those things were seen as promoting or leading infidelity, lasciviousness. etc… They didn’t want to remove the natural deterrent to certain forms of sin.
it was only much later, after important genetic discoveries, that they considered life to begin at “conception”. so science has had two very different effects on the theology surrounding these issues.
….
Women have been the punching bag for cheap dime-store morality since the start of time; why stop now?
Some of us are not!
If someone aborts there may be one less life in the world. If someone does not abort, another life may exist. If there are no gay marriages some, or many people may be sad. If there are gay marriages, or the liberty to do so, then no life or possible life is taken away, and people may be made happy.
Isn’t this country supposed to be about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Not me, but I think people are getting brain washed.
Thanks to the MEA and its co-opting of our classrooms with their socialist agenda.
Homosexuality is a choice made by living, breathing human beings. Abortion is a death sentence imposed by those that have no right to make that choice.