Why are a majority of conservatives against abortion?
482657
They believe the life begins at conception and no reason is good enough to murder a child. I always found it funny that those same conservative people are the same ones who are all for the death penalty. It OK to murder a grown person if they are found guilty in the court of law weather they are truly guilty or not but it is not OK to destroy a cluster of cells the will eventually turn into a human.
725137
Get them to stop the hate... Jesus spent 98% percent of the time talking about the least among us....Conservatives have seemingly abandoned the least among us...Example: Pro Life: Great idea but instead of being prolife they should be called pro-fetus...Once the baby is born..they abandon it and it's poor mother...Now is that really prolife...
439523
I don't know... religion has had it's share of killings... but at the same time, I think a lot of it is caused by the perversion of religion... people who twist it to serve their own needs... like the conservatives... Republican policy is much more like Roman policy in the Bible than what Jesus believed... abortion is the only real issue that Republicans seem to have in common with what Jesus may have actually believed, and one issue does not a "moral party" make. \nBut, people would rather focus on just the issue of abortion, than all of the other things the Repbulican party does like constantly cut funds to the poor and healthcare, killing many, many more in the U.S. than abortion does a year... and their excuse is that they were lazy, which of course is rediculous...\nI guess what I'm trying to say is... that religion is today, and has been since it's inception, full of "money changers in the temple." People using religion for their own purposes, and if you do belive in God, he's probably not to happy with what's going on. \nI personally think anytime you bring religion into politics, or business, it's asking for trouble, corruption and God's wrath.
875169
That's the main confusion most "pro life" people make. Being pro-choice does not mean that I am pro-abortion. It means I am for the rights of the people. Nobody is for abortion. Nobody wants it to happen. The facts are though, if you allow the government to strip you of your rights, no matter what they are, you will never get them back. And it makes it easier for them to take away more and more rights. I am pro-choice because the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution gives a woman the right to decide what she will and will not do with her body, and I am pro-constitution, and pro-peoples rights, and pro-choice. Besides, no matter how you feel, in the end it's none of your business what a woman does choose to do with her body. If if offends you, then don't do it. If you choose to teach this to your children, right on. But if you want to take away more of my rights, then you can stick it up your............
758266
well, the majority of them don't.  The chance of the exit polls being wrong in Florida, Pa, and Ohio is 16 million to one\n(they showed Kerry winning in a landslide) so the majority of Americans wanting Bush but the rep secretary of state in Ohio, and republican owned voting machines rigged it for Bush.\n\nThose that do vote for Bush tend to be religious right thinking the reps actually do something about abortion besides rhetoric and using it for votes and who forget the liberal teachings of Jesus substituting their own beliefs thinking they are being good Christians rather than hypocrites or sincere people who are misguided or not openminded, rich people, people who think they have a shot at the American dream, people who hate helping people with social programs, hypocrites, etc.  Some are moderate reps unhappy with the neocons but who can't bring themselves to vote for a liberal. Some are in the habit of it thinking today's reps are like those of old which they aren't.  Many of them hate the poor and are excessively into war and fear.
1072414
It's really amazing to me how many people don't see the freight train hiding being their little conservative posterboard...\n\nDo you know why China can mandate abortions and force sterlizations? Because reproductive choice is not a guaranteed right.\n\nAs soon as Casey is overturned (for those who forget: Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992) we've lost freedom from government intereference in reproductive choice.\n\nIt's not about abortion. It's about who gets to make the decisions. Right now, it's the individual. But if the Supreme Court decides that reproductive rights are not fundamental rights, and thus subject to state regulation, try to imagine what could happen.\n\nNew York could pass a law saying that anyone making less than $30K per year cannot have children, and must abort any pregnancy, because they obviously cannot support them financially. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected. It's up to the states to decide.\n\nSouth Dakota has already outlawed abortion, even in the case of rape or incest or permanent harm to the mother. Then, they decide that they have too little population, and require every female under the age of 28 who is not celibate to have at least one child. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected.\n\nOr North Carolina or Texas decides that convicted felons should never have children, and starts imposing mandatory sterilization as part of criminal sentences. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected. Let the states decide. Right?\n\nOnce the right to reproductive privacy is taken away by the court, it will be decades before it can be reestablished. Conservatives better start praying, if they get their wish, that during that time they don't become the minority under a legislation that decides to require abortions. Because, once that right to personal choice is lost, the government will always be able to decide whether you can have children or not.\n\nDo people really want to live in a country where state legislatures can decide who can be pregnant, and who cannot, and who must?  Do people really have that much trust and faith in government that they think the legislature will always make the right choices? Because we'll be stuck with those decisions.\n\nWhy can't people understand that freedom of choice is not a minority value, even if the majority happens to disagree with the minority's choice?
1108382
The answer here is very easy. When you talk about the legalisation of abortion in a country, you are not talking about whether or not abortion (or life) is a good thing or a bad thing. That is a question of ethics and/or religious belief. It is not a question of law.\n\nWhether or not to have an abortion is a choice. People who believe that abortion should be legal believe that women should have that choice. People who believe it should be a crime thus want to take away that element of choice. By defiition then, they are anti-choice.\n\nI have heard a lot of 'pro-life' people call the opposition 'anti-life'. They are specifically trying to bring the legal question back into the religious agenda, and they are overgeneralising.\n\nIt is possible to be pro-life, ethically, and pro-choice, legally.
447758
The only people who can legally kill people are the state. That is how conservatives see it. A medical doctor cannot make a decision on life and death. \n\nI do consider myself a consevative however I believe it to be hypocrytical of christians who are against abortion and euthanasia but for the death penalty. Makes no sense at all.
1027900
This is an interesting point because pro-abortion people always ingore the fact that a newborn can't survive on it's own either.\n\nIt's not about a woman's rights, it's about killing babies. That's it. Some people would rather rip a babies body apart with a suction tube than take a birth control pill.\n\n(now watch, some lib will post something about rape and insest as though more than just a few abortions are as a result of rape and insest)
733188
Aren't conservatives amazing?\n\nThey're against "Big Government" but want to have religious nutcases like Jerry Falwell or Ted Haggard make all your personal and medical decisions for you (no abortion, no stem-cell research, no pre-marital sex, no gay marriage, no gambling, no sex education, no Plan B or other contraceptives, etc.). I was gonna say "no drugs" but Haggard blew that one.
1114837
there is no reason to be opposed to stem-cell research. conservatives are stupid about that. people are going to get abortions anyway, so they might as well be used to help find cures to diseases. and as to the oil, the only reason we're still in iraq is to get more oil for george bush's daddy's company. another selfish move by a dumb conservative.
899147
There's nothing wrong with either gay marriage or with abortion. It should only be up to the persons involved whether they participate or not.\n\nMost normal people see that and don't approve of the neocon position against those things.\n\nPlus, in light of all the republican sex scandles lately, they would have hurt themselves even MORE by harping on that.
1079817
That's one of the reasons I'm pro-choice. Abortion may be the wrong personal choice for me, but who am I to tell someone who can't afford the medical care to have a child -- much less care for it after birth -- that they must have one?\n\nOn an semi-unrelated note -- Ever notice how it's the people who are against abortion are also the ones against educating about birth control in schools and also usually -- but not always -- the ones most likely to limit welfare benefits?\n\nAdoption is nice, but since everyone seems to want to adopt perfect little babies -- not kids whose parents have abandoned them, or kids who have spent time in the foster care system -- it doesn't seem viable to have that as the only solution. **EDIT to clarify** My point here is that even when people do decide to adopt, they often overlook or choose not to adopt at-risk or high-needs children, older children or children who have been  in the foster care system. So simply saying every child that would be aborted should be put up for adoption doesn't seem a viable solution to me.
262191
I'm a democrat and social liberal who is against abortion, but not on religious grounds.  I just firmly believe that individuals should not have their opportunities, including life, denied based on their parent's choices.  Often opponents of abortion imply that the mother should just give her child up for adoption if she is not capable, monetarily, mentally, or physically, of providing an adequate life for the child.  With that said, there are hundreds of thousands of children, eighty-percent of whom are black, who live in horrendous conditions in foster care without ever being adopted by a loving family.  What leaves me dumbfounded is the fact that quite a few of these christian pro-lifers are also firmly against the notion of allowing gays the opportunity to provide loving homes based on their conviction in jewish folklore.  Point being, if you are against abortion you should at least favor providing the best care possible for these children.
1101247
They're not pro-choice.  They're pro-abortion.  Ask them if they support a man's right to choose and see what kind of faces they make.
760968
Evidently a lot of people have chosen abortions because Bush is in office. After all neither statistics not Libs ever lie, do they?\n\nI've always wondered just how many abortions Clinton has had to pay for.
130358
wow, that is easy. NONE. they are against abortion, but instead of doing something productive about it, they go blow up abortion clinics.....\nhypocritical?? I think so!!