So. Because you don't agree with it, the study is another part of the VRWC (Vast Right Wing Conspiracy)?
Just for kicks I did a quick google search on "Wirthlin Worldwide" to see what popped up.
For those curious about them: It was very educational to browse through the first few results pages and note that a good 3/4 of the hits were about polls for ultra conservative causes and agendas and not suprisingly that the polls always favored their ideologies.
The fact that Wirthlin's website is hawking a book about Reagan on it's opening page was also interesting and a bit disquieting in and of itself.
There's also a short company bio that hints at what they're actually up to at Disinfopedia
So. Because you don't agree with it, the study is another part of the VRWC (Vast Right Wing Conspiracy)?
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nope, my agreement or disagreement doesn't figure into whether they're part of the fundy crusade.Originally posted by gae:
So. Because you don't agree with it, the study is another part of the VRWC (Vast Right Wing Conspiracy)?
What I found interesting is just who is using their polling services and think it should give one pause to contemplate whether an outfit that is so heavily patronized by agenda toting right wing groups might not be attracting their business for a reason. Somehow I don't think it's because they give discounts to the chosen. Far more likely would be thier being able and willing to supply "poll" results that support whatever you happen to want them to support.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is hardly most of America. Give me a fucking break.The poll of 1,001
<font color="#a52a2a" size="1">[ November 27, 2004 08:13 PM: Message edited by: Jigsaw ]</font>
This is one of those "....it depends...." issues for me.
First, I think we all agree that legal abortions hurt a woman a lot less, physically/emotionally/mentally etc., than illegal "back alley" abortions. Not that anybody would accept the "they're going to do it anyway so we might as well make it legal" argument on ANY other illegal act (i.e. drug use, murder, speeding, prostitution) (wait a minute, some of those MIGHT be okay with that argument).
And many people would agree that under certain "special circumstances", it should be an option - the circumstances that are acceptable will vary from person to person, but MOST people would accept, say, a pre-natal test showing the baby has a genetic condition such as Tay-Sachs (which essentially would sentence the infant to a short but excrutiating existance).
I'd love to have every pregnancy be planned and wanted. My fantasy world would have birth control in the water supply with freely available neutralizers - but you'd have to actively take them, default is no pregnancy.
Recent Poll Reveals Most Americans Think Abortion Hurts Women
CHICAGO, November 26, 2004
(LifeSiteNews.com) - A recent nationwide survey conducted by Wirthlin Worldwide has found that a majority of Americans believe that abortion is "almost always bad" for women. The findings reflect the earlier findings of an Elliot Institute poll, which found that a majority of Americans believe abortion makes women's lives worse.
The poll of 1,001 Americans, conducted on behalf of Americans United for Life, found that 61 percent felt that "abortion is almost always a bad thing for a woman," whereas only 23 percent said it was almost always a good thing.
Of 64 percent who said they knew someone personally who had had an abortion, 55 percent felt it was "generally a negative experience" based on their observations of the women, whereas 40 percent felt the experience was a positive one for the women.
The Elliot Institute poll, conducted in December 2002, found that only 16 percent believed abortion generally makes women's lives better; 52 percent felt it made women's lives worse.
The Elliot Institute poll also established that 80 percent of Americans felt that women experienced moderate to severe emotional effects from abortion, with 74 to 90 percent of Americans saying that women were not fully informed of this risk beforehand. Even the most "pro-choice" respondents believed that women were not fully informed of the risks associated with abortion.
"These findings show that American's eyes are being opened to the fact that abortion harms women, often from personally seeing a woman struggle with the aftermath of abortion," Elliot Institute director Dr. David Reardon said. "They also underscore the importance of efforts to educate the public on the risks of abortion--efforts that are apparently already taking hold with Americans."
source
AL wrote:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's an interesting idea, but if we lived in your fantasy world, I wouldn't be here and neither would Trav.I'd love to have every pregnancy be planned and wanted. My fantasy world would have birth control in the water supply with freely available neutralizers - but you'd have to actively take them, default is no pregnancy.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's an interesting idea, but if we lived in your fantasy world, I wouldn't be here and neither would Trav.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Alot of people wouldn't.Originally posted by gae:
AL wrote:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'd love to have every pregnancy be planned and wanted. My fantasy world would have birth control in the water supply with freely available neutralizers - but you'd have to actively take them, default is no pregnancy.
Oh, BTW, polls suck. They can be too easily manipulated to get the data you want.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If wishes were fishes.Originally posted by gae:
That's an interesting idea, but if we lived in your fantasy world, I wouldn't be here and neither would Trav.
At the risk of treading on thin ice....
I have always been pro-life. As many of you know, the guiding force behind my philosophy is science and reason (small "r" [img]wink.gif[/img] ). I favor objectivity over subjectivity, and I believe in precedent. The intent behind our laws was objectivity (the old nation of laws not of men argument). In the abortion context, I always believed that, to say life begins at birth, was an arbitrary distinction. Some babies are born at 41 weeks, others at 39, others at 36, and so on. And babies can be born naturally, or you can remove them from the womb early. Bottom line, "birth" is an arbitrary concept.
Then you get into the whole "viability" argument. Only that fails because babies are in no way "viable." They may be biologically as regards their mother, but unlike say a colt (which is up feeding itself in a matter of hours) humans are not viable until....when, age 5? 4? How many 2 year olds could make it on their own? Spare me.
I could go on, but suffice to say, I said earlier I have always been pro-life and anti-capital punishment. But in light of the my last 2 years as a criminal defense lawyer, I am slowly beginning to crack in my ways. For example, I am seriously becoming "pro-death" i.e. certain people need to be bumped off, or at least sent away for a long time. And I'm not necessarily talking about the criminals.
I guess this is my long-winded way of saying that, if I had one power in this world, it would be determining who lives and who dies.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks