A new survey from Pew Research which suggests that a declining number of Americans support the option of abortion in all or most cases is receiving a fair amount of attention. But is there actually any evidence that public sentiments on abortion are changing?
In my opinion, probably not -- and if there is change in public opinion, it is occurring very slowly. The chart below is populated with data from PollingReport.com and incorporates data from eight organizations -- ABC/Washington Post, Quinnipiac, Pew, LA Times/Bloomberg, AP/Ipsos, CBS, NBC/WSJ and CNN -- that ask respondents a four-option question about abortion, where they are given a choice between saying abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in all cases, or illegal in most cases. We then draw a linear trendline through the individual datapoints.
Although two recent surveys -- the Pew poll conducted last month and an NBC/WSJ poll conducted in September -- indicated smaller-than-usual margins for the legal option, this is countered by a large amount of data from earlier in 2008 which indicated support for legal abortion at about its typical levels in the mid-50's. While it's possible that public opinion has shifted more dramatically on this issue since sometime late last year, it seems highly unlikely. Polls don't move without reasons, and abortion hasn't been particularly in the news of late. Who knows -- maybe Baby Trig won over a few hearts and minds -- but odds are the Pew result is a mild outlier. Since the abortion choice question is surveyed quite frequently, we will know soon enough.
As far as a longer-term trend goes, you can arguably perceive a slight one in favor of those saying abortion should be illegal. On the other hand, if we look at a different type of survey question -- those asking the respondent to identify as pro-choice or pro-life -- we do not perceive any such pattern:
Or, if you like, we can combine the two types of surveys onto one graph:
There's just no trend at all there, except maybe toward slightly more people having an opinion, one way or the other, about the abortion choice question.
In fact, the remarkable thing about abortion is precisely how steady public opinion has been on it for many, many years. Perhaps this in and of itself is interesting -- as Ross Douthat pointed out, there is some decent evidence that Gen Y'ers are less inclined to take the pro-choice position than Gen X'ers or Baby Boomers -- although they are still more pro-choice than the voters they are gradually replacing in the voting pool, which are members of the Silent Generation. This is in spite of the fact that young Americans are considerably more liberal than their peers on issues like gay marriage and marijuana legalization, issues on which there is more tangible evidence of "momentum" in favor of the liberal position. There are evidently an increasing number of pro-life, pro-gay marriage Americans, particularly among Generation Yers, a position it would have been very unusual to encounter just a few years ago.
5.14.2009
Is Public Opinion Changing on Abortion?
@ 12:39 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
91 comments
Do they ever ask more useful questions, like whether abortion should be banned in the second or third trimester, but still legal otherwise?
I think it makes sense for the younger generation to support the pro-life position while also supporting gay marriage and other liberal positions.
Gay marriage is an equality issue. It doesn't negatively effect anyone else directly, and a religious argument doesn't resonate with an increasingly secular youth.
Abortion, while still a religious issue, also ties more directly to a persons inherent morality. Some people have a high value for life of any kind, and instinctively recoil at the idea of a human life not getting it's chance at a full life (not to mention the belief that it will be the life's one true chance at existence for non religious people).
I don`t think people are pro abortion, no one likes abortion but the majority of people do not want the govt. telling people what they can do when it comes to morality.
I think if you asked do you want abortion outlawed and make it impossible to get a legal abortion you would not even find the polling close.
Abortion has always been around and if it was ever outlawed woman would start dying from illegal ones. Best to have it legal and safe and try to limit unwanted pregnancy as much as possible.
On a completely anecdotal level: I went to Catholic school my whole life (much of it in the Midwest), and I know a great number of twentysomethings who call themselves "moderate conservatives" and "pro-life" but who are also, say, fans of gay marriage on Facebook. Whereas amongst the older (Baby Boomer) generation of my family (a larger sample size than most...), the pro-lifers are almost all opposed to gay marriage, and the pro-choicers all for it. The ideological split is very even in that generation, but amongst Gen Y-ers, it really just seems that gay marriage is, excepting a relatively fringe opposition, essentially a non-starter, even those with more traditionally conservative positions on other "values" issues.
I agree with Joel above; I think the question is insufficiently nuanced for the younger respondent. My intuition is that the "illegal in some cases" response is picking up the "people shouldn't choose to have abortions" attitude. (I call this the Palin Position!)
My response to those who are against abortion is always "What if it's your 12 year old daughter who has been raped and is going to die if she doesn't have an abortion?"
Those who need and/or really want abortions will get them. The only choice is whether it's legal and safe or illegal and dangerous. That's the reality.
Without an event, this is a hard one to explain. The change was a shift from support from "legal in some cases" to "illegal in some cases." The same poll found a bigger shift away from gun control.
I'm wondering if the Gen-Yers are also less pro-death penalty. If so, they are much more pro-life in general. Perhaps with Obama in office, there's a feeling that more alternatives to abortion are available, hence a decline in support for abortion.
One possibility is that a few people will say that they are against legal abortion, as long as they feel that there is no chance of their stated opinion ever becoming enforceable law.
Sort of a freebie. "I actually want it to be legal, but I'll say that I want it to be illegal, to look more 'moral', as long as I'm pretty sure it will stay legal anyway".
It seems as if there is a mild trend, in recent months, for Obama approval to be strong, Republicans to be unpopular, and yet for some issues like abortion, firearms regulation, and level of subjective concern about the environment, to seem to be moving mildly in the "opposite" direction of trends.
I'm really starting to think that there is a group of people who want liberal policy, but want to claim otherwise in surveys. Especially with regard to non-economic issues that everyone knows will be very slow to change either way.
I do think the polling is picking something up, and Nate's conclusion is correct.
I admit to being purely anecdotal and thus encountering some sample size issues, but from my experience as a Gen-Y liberal white male, there are an increasing number of pro-gay rights, pro-life Democrats. As the country shifts leftward, there are plenty of people who have a secular view of the world and still find abortion to be "the M word".
That said, it's happening rather slowly. It's also worth noting that America is clearly to the left of many otherwise liberal/progressive European nations on abortion, certainly when compared to the economic spectrum, but also some social issues.
I heard an interesting observation on NPR the other day... that as ultrasounds become more commonplace, people are feeling a stronger "connection" with the embryo/fetus.
Harold - I think it's quite possible that there's a chunk of people who voted for Obama (young voters and former Bush 43 voters) who don't necessarily agree with every plank in the Democratic platform.
That seems more likely than agreeing on every issue but telling pollsters differently on 2or 3, though I admire your optimism!
This is hard to really make sense of....I thought MORE people would support abortion.
There is an increasing trend of atheists in generation Y.
There is more support for gay marriage in generation Y.
Generation Y is more liberal that older generations.
Why is generation Y more pro-life?
This does not add up at all.
e3323 - Gay marriage is purely a tolerance/religious issue.
Abortion has a lot more nuance to it. You'll find plenty of athiests who do not support abortion rights in Western Europe.
Good Post. I don't think gay marriage or abortion, the major social issues, are gaining any steam either direction...
If you change it to civil unions and/or partial birth abortions, that is a different story.
I always wonder when talking about this issue, no one brings up this. Some people are Pro Life AND Pro Choice.
edsmedia's comment mentioned it, but I'm so baffled why it's not out more?
I don't want people to die, but people should have all the options of medical procedures that are available for them in their certain cases.
on a side note, the same "pro-life" constituency is statistically in favor of the death penalty, would push for war and harsher interrogation tactics, and have non-diplomatic solutions to conflicts.
Does this, to anyone else, seem like a conflict of beliefs?
Nate: "...young Americans are considerably more liberal than their peers on issues like gay marriage and marijuana legalization..."
the "peers" of young americans are young americans. I'm confused by this sentence.
@Jon, I would have though peers of young americans would mean the young of other countries (european young, or indian young, etc)....?
What is the uncertainty on the slopes and intercepts?
To quote the late, great George Carlin, "who has less abortions than gay people?"
Ed Kilgore had an interesting post on this at Democratic Strategist. He speculates that the big issue that the polls miss is the "why" question. People may be willing to express discomfort with abortion in the abstract, but when it comes to specific cases are sympathetic if the abortion is obtained for "right" reasons -- e.g. health of the mother. Which would explain why the reaction was widely negative to McCain's sarcastic put-down of health exceptions for abortion.
Kilgore concludes:
[quote]McCain was simply reflecting the commonly-held belief in anti-abortion circles that the "health exception" makes any putative abortion bans irrelevant. If they are right, and if the evidence that a significant majority of Americans favor a "health exception" is right, then it may not much matter what people tell pollsters about their bedrock convictions on abortion. If those who want to make "most abortions" illegal in the abstract are willing to make "most abortions" legal if there's a plausible reason for them, then the presumed "conservative shift" on abortion may be almost completely illusory.[unquote]
At first blush, it seems to me that the demographic shift responsible for the very modest trend toward convergence between pro-choice and pro-life is probably the increase of Latinos, not the generational change between Gen Y and the Silent Generation.
Although most subsets of Latinos tend to economically liberal, many are very conservative on religious issues like abortion. It would seem to be helpful to test how the slight change over the past 15 years in pro-choice vs pro-life coincides with any increase in the portion of Latinos in the survey's sample.
e3323: atheism isn't that widespread in Gen Y. Even at my very liberal university, only about one student in three is nonreligious. And the people who find atheism most appealing are likely to be liberal in the first place; in the 1990s, when nonreligious Americans went from 8% of the population to 15%, deconversion was common among people who already were liberal, less common among moderates, and practically nonexistent among conservatives.
I think the simple reason for the increasing pro-life, pro-gay position is that gay issues have come into the mainstream much more recently. Pop culture became gay friendly in the mid 90's -- thus Gen Y-ers, regardless of ideology, are likely to view gay marriage as less controversial than older generations.
When reasons for abortion come into play, incest or rape, then the number against it drops significantly. From the data I've seen, only 7% to 10% of this country is against abortion regardless of reason.
I'm a member of Gen-Y. I really can't speak for all of us but I do find myself a moderate on abortion (and a number of economic positions) while being very liberal on things like the environment, marijuana legalization, and gay marriage. I'm also non-religious so my moderation on abortion is not rooted in that. I just don't see it as a very clear cut issue, though I am more pro-choice than pro-life.
In very pro-choice California, a ballot initiative failed by about 4.4% that would have required parental notification for minors' abortions. This was the third defeat, but the margin was the closest.
The difference was Latino voters, who are more conservative on abortion, but don't vote in primaries or special election. In LA County, the yes vote came within abour .4% of the no vote.
So Latinos are a factor.
This argument shouldn’t be about birthing a baby or not birthing a baby.
This argument is squarely framed around bodily integrity and the right to own one’s own body. Everyone can hate abortion, but it’s just not right for anyone to have legal authority over another person’s body. Bodily integrity is the purest civil liberty.
As long as these abortion questions are abstract, no useful information will come of them. What if the survey questions to self-identified pro-lifers were framed, "when abortion is illegal, should prison terms be 1 year, 3 years, 10 years, life in prison, or death penalty? Should above penaties apply to girls & women who have abortions, or to doctors, nurses and pharmacists who assist? How many new prisons are you willing to fund?" People can argue metaphysics from their ivory towers of church, government, or Notre Dame forever, but someone has to actually enforce the law in the real world. It wasn't pretty before 1973 (I remember it well!) and it would not be pretty now.
It would be nice to seperate out some life cycle trends from generational trends. There are life cycle trends on religious views as children become young adults become parents then face death. It is often reported that there is a lifecycle of political views from liberal to conservative to "pay for my retirement". At the same time there are definitely generational trends.
On abortion, I'm a young religious pro-life moderate democrat. I support civil unions and legalizing pot. In a lot of ways the "feminist" discussions of womens rights do not have the same relevance in todays debate, in part due to increases in equity in part due to focus on other issues. For a generation Y member, the pro-life framing may be more relevant along side discussion of war, terrorism, death penalty and genocide. If wage equality were as discussed as Darfur, perhaps there would be more sympathy to the "woman's body" framing of abortion instead of the "baby's life" framing.
I think the feminist argument for abortion rights will decline in importance over the coming years. Since the 1970s, women's liberty and equality has increased in many ways, various forms of contraception have become more widely used and accepted, and old taboos about pregnancy (especially among the unmarried) have faded. All these changes make young women today much less likely to view the ability to abort a fetus as essential to their freedom from male domination. Women of the baby-boom generation (such as my mother, who believes that "life begins at conception" but that abortion should nevertheless be legal) may find that their grownup daughters are surprisingly ambivalent on the issue.
It's actually my hope that in the future, women's equality and liberty will have advanced to the point where even strong restrictions on abortion do not pose a threat. At that point the debate will be solely about whether, or at what stage in development, a fetus is a person.
"Do they ever ask more useful questions, like whether abortion should be banned in the second or third trimester, but still legal otherwise?"
Or "If you oppose legalizing abortion, do you support criminalizing it? Should doctors who perform abortions serve prison terms? Should women who get abortions serve prison terms?"
Asking the question of whether someone favors or opposes the right to some, most, or all abortions is not especially useful without the context of consequences.
I don't think it's surprising at all that the younger generation is more ambivalent about abortion than about something like gay rights.
Gay rights is purely a matter of not inflicting a preference upon others. Those who are gay don't harm anyone, so denying them rights is simply a question of bigotry.
Abortion is a tough issues, because there is another entity adversely affected by the choice. I'm pro-choice, but it's an issue where I can understand and even sympathize with the viewpoint from the other side.
I think it's perfectly reasonable for liberals/progressives to be conflicted on the issue of abortion. I have never heard a single legitimate reason to restrict the rights of homosexuals, so I can't see that as an issue where reasonable people can disagree.
First of all, the only reason I'm posting here is because I appreciate the calm and respectful way in which people are posting their opinions here. It's quite a breath of fresh air compared to most comment boards.
As a member of Gen-Y, I would consider myself to be pro-life, pro-gay marriage (or at least civil unions).
Most people's pro-choice argument is that women have a right to privacy and a right to control their own bodies. I completely agree with that, but I also believe that conceived fetus is also a person with a body and with rights to that body. Therefore, I do not think a woman should be able to choose to end the life of another. I feel that this view is often left out of the debate. Of course, in certain situations regarding the mother's health, etc. I think abortions should be allowed.
I also believe that "pro-life" is much more than just abortion, and can (and should) be applied to all policies from health care to taxes to foreign policy.
I support civil unions because I don't think anyone should be denied legal rights due to their sexual orientation. However, I am fine with the church retaining "marriage" as a spiritual ceremony.
As part of generation Y, I can tell you that I have no problem with gay marriage, but abortion still makes me squirm. No one wants abortions to happen and we are suspicious of groups that seem to be promoting abortion as a great way to substitute for birth-control and liberate women from single-motherhood.
I still think that the sexual promiscuity in our culture is a moral problem, that abortion isn't a good decision to make, but we probably should keep it safe and legal in the first trimester.
Gay marriage on the other hand, seems to counter the sexual excesses of our society, as gay people commit to a monogamous relationship. That doesn't offend my conservative values. That uplifts them.
@Minstrel - Agree 100% with your sentiments.
The idea that abortion and gay marriage should be bundled together, as they so often are in political and media framing, is nonsense.
Being opposed to gay marriage is a classic case of inflicting preference on people from a position of bigotry and fear, coded as "tradition".
On the other hand, I am strongly pro-life on abortion and have no problem reconciling that with my athiesm, my economic liberalism, my strong anti-war viewpoints, my support for full equality for women, or my belief that we need to spend out the wazoo to try to turn public opinion to a far more liberal position on gun control.
And I still think abortion is murder.
The funny thing, since someone mentioned McCain's comment in that debate about "health of the mother", I thought McCain made a great point there (perhaps the only one he made in the entire campaign from my perspective).
If a woman really wants an abortion for reasons such as financial hardship, or a breakup with the father, or whatever the case may be, she can fairly easily convince a sympathetic doctor to diagnose an anxiety disorder related to the impending birth that would then qualify her for the "health exemption". McCain's point is perfectly valid in framing the health exemption as a loophole that pro-choice politicians insist on that basically legalizes all abortion, even after passing something like the partial-birth abortion ban.
I think both sides can agree that it's a giant loophole, and McCain took heat for pointing it out because he used air quotes, not because his point was wrong (again, regardless of which side of the debate you come down on).
@Andy
what group promote abortion as a substitute for birth-control and smart decisions?
I have never heard that argument from anyone who supports the right to choose to have an abortion.
I would love to know if I'm wrong about that...but I have only ever heard that thrown out from people who are trying to make the argument to keep abortion legal seem that its on shaky ground.
I could go on a bout some other things in your post, but I'll stick to the topic at hand...
@walt526:
At first blush, it seems to me that the demographic shift responsible for the very modest trend toward convergence between pro-choice and pro-life is probably the increase of Latinos, not the generational change between Gen Y and the Silent Generation.
Although most subsets of Latinos tend to economically liberal, many are very conservative on religious issues like abortion. It would seem to be helpful to test how the slight change over the past 15 years in pro-choice vs pro-life coincides with any increase in the portion of Latinos in the survey's sample.
Interesting thoughts. Another survey that would be interesting would be the one that compares first-generation Latinos' opinions with those of second-generation Latinos and those further removed from their immigrant experience. I believe that subsequent generations of immigrants tend toward assimilation into American politics, culture, and mores (it seems to me that most third-generation "immigrants" don't speak their ancestral language much at all, for e.g.).
Answering my question would require an involved and tightly focused study, so I don't expect to see such data anytime soon.
I also agree with the idea that gay marriage and abortion shouldn't be bundled together. Gay marriage is a civil rights issue. And while I definitely don't believe that abortion should ever be made illegal, I resent that pro-choice arguments are always made on the margin: i.e. along the terms that Donna said: "What if it's your 12 year old daughter who has been raped and is going to die if she doesn't have an abortion?"
The reality is that rape and incest only account for 2% of abortions, 6% are health concerns of the mother or baby. The remaining 92% are pure birth control issues: the pregnancy could have been prevented, but it wasn't. Now I am willing to accept that birth control has a failure rate, and some of those women tried to not conceive.
So as someone with more libertarian leanings, I definitely don't think that the government should be involved there (although I do see the whole argument of abortion infringing on the rights of an unborn child), I really think that pro-choice activists are doing the cause a disservice by not acknowledging that the majority of abortions are just birth control, and stop framing the argument on the case of the 8% of abortions that many people like myself, find "acceptable". If the problem of the 92% of birth control abortions were addressed, people would perhaps be more supportive of abortion...as it is, we are just supporting the choice of women to make up for their negligence...by extinguishing a life. Not very palatable.
I was watching the movie "Role Models" the other day and one line in the movie made my stomach roll: one of the characters was going to sleep with a woman, but realized he didn't have a condom, and said as much to his potential partner...her response: "that's okay, I'm pro-choice." Yes, it's only a movie, but I think that careless sentiment is what makes some people like myself, with more libertarian leanings, be more comfortable with the pro-life side than the pro-choice (which I am).
I'm in Generation X (born 1973) and am pro-gay marriage but anti-abortion. The difference is that gay marriage is a matter of personal freedom and social equality, whereas abortion involves a third party who has no say in the matter. The "where is the harm" argument doesn't fly with abortion the way it does with gay rights.
I don't think gay marriage or abortion, the major social issues, are gaining any steam either direction...I disagree. Gay marriage wasn't even on the radar a decade ago. Remember, Howard Dean got a lot of flack just for signing a bill authorizing civil unions. Now we've reached the point where saying, "OK, you can have civil unions, just don't call it marriage" is the *conservative* position in many places.
Although most subsets of Latinos tend to economically liberal, many are very conservative on religious issues like abortion.And gay marriage. Prop 8, banning gay marriage, passed in California. A lot of Democrats were surprised, but if you look at the maps showing where it did or did not pass, it's clear that the outreach by the Prop 8 opponents didn't connect with heavily Democratic constituencies like blacks and Latinos.
"What if it's your 12 year old daughter who has been raped and is going to die if she doesn't have an abortion?"That conflates three issues: the respondent's feelings about her daughter, rape, and the mother's health. Even I would say yes to abortion in that case, because it would be legitimate if the pregnancy were a real danger to the health of the mother. But I'd say the same for a stranger who hadn't been raped, and I'd say no if it were my own daughter and she'd been raped. The baby shouldn't pay for the perpetrator's crime.
Often the abortion question is asked so that "rape, incest, or a danger to the mother" are grouped together as exceptions, but personally I would only allow the danger exception. Politically, I know that wouldn't be a popular position in this country, and would be pleased with some lesser restriction.
Everyone can hate abortion, but it’s just not right for anyone to have legal authority over another person’s body.Right, which is why it should not be legal for someone to have the authority to kill any person, whether born or unborn.
What I'm curious about from a political standpoint, in addition to other questions raised above, is how many voters use abortion as a "litmus test" when voting. How many pro-life voters will not vote for a pro-choice candidate, how many pro-choice voters will not vote for a pro-life candidate, and how do those results break down by age? My suspicion is that young pro-life voters are less likely to refuse to vote for any pro-life candidates than their older counterparts. This is just based on personal experience, though, and if any data on this exists, I'd love to see it.
Can we stop using "Generation Y"? It's very demeaning and degrading and makes us seem like second-class to Gen Xers. The correct term to be using is Millenials or something that references Bush or technology. All of us grew up with computers for the most part. I know I've been using them or watching them be used since I was 33
I am mostly against abortion, but I still think it should be legal for at least the first trimester. After that, only health reasons (mother or child). Not because I think it's a life, but because it's a bit disturbing to me.
parsaion said:
"on a side note, the same "pro-life" constituency is statistically in favor of the death penalty, would push for war and harsher interrogation tactics, and have non-diplomatic solutions to conflicts."
How can you compare the killing of innocent human babies to the killing of rapists, murders, and terrorists?
the same "pro-life" constituency is statistically in favor of the death penalty, would push for war and harsher interrogation tactics, and have non-diplomatic solutions to conflictsBeats me. Statistically that may be true, but I'm against the death penalty, pro-diplomacy, and anti-torture. I'll let those who feel otherwise try to explain themselves.
What I'm curious about from a political standpoint, in addition to other questions raised above, is how many voters use abortion as a "litmus test" when voting.Good question. I consistently vote for Democrats and just wish that I had a pro-life Democrat to vote for. My parents kind of vacillate; in 2004 they stopped by the local Kerry campaign office but decided to vote for Bush when they saw the big "Keep Abortion Legal" signs there, though I think they regretted it.
My response to those who are against abortion is always "What if it's your 12 year old daughter who has been raped and is going to die if she doesn't have an abortion?"
Terrible straw man argument and is completely on the fringe in most cases. Great comments by CaliValleyGirl in response, though. So much that I am going to copy/paste so it can be re-read.
I really think that pro-choice activists are doing the cause a disservice by not acknowledging that the majority of abortions are just birth control, and stop framing the argument on the case of the 8% of abortions that many people like myself, find "acceptable". If the problem of the 92% of birth control abortions were addressed, people would perhaps be more supportive of abortion...
@harold in response to:
I'm really starting to think that there is a group of people who want liberal policy, but want to claim otherwise in surveys.
I'm wondering what you would say to someone who came on here and said,
"I'm really starting to think that there is a group lf people who want conservative policy but want to claim otherwise in surveys."
Any chance there would be a fair amount of mocking of that person and them being accused of being disconnected from or not grounded in reality and in total denial of facts?
@CaliValleyGirl
What pro-choice activists are trying to frame it in a way that we forget about the 92% you are talking about? (I'm using your numbers - we should find some accurate numbers for this)
Based in the arguments they provide, they would support legislation that banned that 92% as long as you left in the clause that allowed the other 8% you are talking about to be able to legally have their abortion.
@Mike
You could use that argument to go against anything. I understand your worries about it, but my desire to not make illegal someone's only way of staying alive weighs more.
and I don't know why I'm responding to GROG, but here we go.
Every heard of false imprisonment? Ever seen an article about an inmate on his way to his final punishment, except that the day before some evidence came out that completely clears him/her?
I am pro life in all cases. No one should kill unless that is the absolute last resort. These "murderers and rapists" you talk about (at least the ones facing the death penalty) are already in jail, and not harming anyone currently. And by killing these terrorists in wars just drives more hatred, instead of trying to acknowledge that there may be things we did to these societies that deserves their hate, and trying to reconcile so that we can eventually all get along (we trained alqueda for our purposes in the first iraq war, and left them to die later....i wonder why they hate us?).
Pro Life, especially when it comes from "Christian Values" is a joke when the same person wishes death on others - even if the other is a bad person. Last I checked, Jesus said to forgive others, and not judge others....
@CaliValleyGirl,
Your point is well taken, but you don't seem to realize why the extreme pro-choice arguments are made (i.e. 12 year old). It's because too often pro-life supporters propose the extreme blanket ban on all abortions. Personally I am pro-life and think that less draconian laws should be enacted to *discourage* abortion - as opposed to the government police state model. Perhaps a requirement for couples to listen to an ultrasound before choosing to terminate would be just, for example.
@Casual Observer
I Agree, it is a straw man argument...in a sense.
But so is the idea that "Health Issues" can be used as a loophole to get an abortion for any reason the person wants.
The difference with the straw man argument that the left presents is that this is a case that happens, currently. Yes, maybe 1 or 2 percent of times, but it happens. Should we enact legislation that forgets about those 1 or 2 percent? No.
And I think you will find a very sympathetic pro choice base if you enact legislation that has a clause about a persons health.
As I have said before, I can't vouch for ALL pro choice people, but I can vouch for a good percent of them. I think there are very few people who WANT to have abortions. In all cases, most of us would choose life if we could. But its the CHOICE about your own body that matters.
Than there's a smaller amount that would be ok with legislation against abortion as long as it doesn't forget about the small percentage of abortions that actually have to do with health / rape issues....
It still just strikes me as funny, coming from a party that doesn't want government intrusion into their lives (except for where the normal practice goes against their morals).
@parsasion
I Agree, it is a straw man argument...in a sense.
But so is the idea that "Health Issues" can be used as a loophole to get an abortion for any reason the person wants.
The difference with the straw man argument that the left presents is that this is a case that happens, currently.Are you seriously suggesting a 12-year old girl who gets raped and then has an abortion to save her life is more common than a woman with a second or third-trimester pregnancy obtaining a doctor's note to terminate an unwanted abortion that isn't actually threatening her life?
I'm pretty sure several states, most notably South Dakota, have put initiatives on the ballot trying to more closely define the health/life of mother abortion. (I point out South Dakota because they somewhat infamously tried to define it that major organs had to be failing and/or the woman's life had to be in imminent danger).
Women getting around abortion restrictions with the health loophole, particularly mental health, does "actually happen". It's why Barack Obama and many pro-choicers fight so hard to make sure mental health exceptions are included. Both sides of the argument are aware of the impact of the loophole in giving mothers the option of an abortion all the way through the pregnancy.
@Mike
What states have outlawed abortion?
And as far as your second paragraph, I believe it is disingenuous to say the reason all pro-choicers want those exceptions is so there is a loophole. I'm sure some want it specifically for that, but I am a pro choice person, and I only want those exceptions to be put in to help those who would really be affected. And if legislation does in fact pass to stop all but those exceptions, I would hope (just as I hope with all other laws - though it rarely happens - the naivety of it all, our laws actually being enforced) that people who use the exceptions as a loophole are found and prosecuted.
I understand that my hope is naive in the real world, but it is also naive to believe that abortions would stop just because it is made illegal (just as it was to think that drinking alcohol would stop...sadly)
I know some states have outlawed some type of abortions...but they all end up having health clauses...?
(even south dakota has a health clause...)
Just a quick point that given the under-reporting of rapes in general, the number of abortions due to rape is probably a significant underestimate (although still would make up a small minority of all abortions).
Also, agreeing with the comment that some pro-choice folks might tend to be suspicious of pro-life agendas that do not include real sex education, under-fund the foster-care system, attempt to prevent gay couples from adopting, etc.
I think there is much greater potential to tone down the rhetoric in this debate on both sides now that it appears (at least on 538, haven't surveyed Fox Nation LOL) if people are willing to address the causes of unintended pregnancies as well as the options.
@Mike
"Women getting around abortion restrictions with the health loophole, particularly mental health, does "actually happen". It's why Barack Obama and many pro-choicers fight so hard to make sure mental health exceptions are included."
Yes, Mike, because the pro-choice crowd is filled with insidious baby killers. And I’m sure you’re qualified to read Obama’s mind. This is the sort of destructive debate that seems to pointless to me. Mike, please tell us how long you will imprison every girl/woman who has an abortion and every doctor /family member or loved one that assists them. This is why using *persuasion* and subtle rather than heavy-handed laws are the only realistically viable approaches to reducing abortion (the rate of which, by the way, has decreased by nearly 10% in the U.S. I am pro-life and would never personally approve of an abortion under anything other than truly extraordinary circumstances, but it would be a real breath of fresh air to see a pro-life argument that is actually constructive and grounded in reality. I’d like pro-life arguments to focus more on outcomes, and less on methods. I.E. maybe it’s more important to reduce the number of abortions as soon as possible using reasonable means, rather than trying and failing repeatedly with a sledgehammer.
parsaion:
I don't know why I'm responding to GROG, but here we go.I'm sorry you feel that way. I might have differing opinions than many on this site, but I have never been anything but respectful to other posters.
Anti-choicer consistency check: do you propose banning in vitro fertilization, which kills far more fetuses than abortion every year? Are you opposed embryonic stem cell research? If you are truly "pro-life", each of these fertilized cells is equally precious. If, however, you're only a zealot about banning abortion, you probably just have issues with women having sex.
In 2008, anti-abortionists tried again to ban both plan B and birth control pills - neither of which are abortion. Both acts reveal their puritanical desire to control women, rather than to protect fetuses.
Banning abortion won't end abortions. Rich women will pay professionals to have them performed illegally and poor women will get them done over the counter. They already do this in parts of the South. Hell, you can google for ways to do your own abortion - it's not that hard. Banning it takes the medical professionals out of the equation which unnecessarily endangers the mother.
Parsaion: I was just responding to Donna in the comments who framed it in that exact way…so there are pro-choicers who frame the argument that way.
I mean, it’s similar to framing the whole torture debate in: “imagine your 12 year old daughter is being held hostage and being raped, and you have one of the suspected kidnappers in custody, would you not consider torture to find the location of your daughter and save her?” My answer: yes.
Torture over 2 years while a suspect is held in custody? Different results.
My feelings towards abortion legislation: pregnancy spans 9 months, there is (to me) a difference between having an abortion in the very early stages of a pregnancy (regardless of the reason) and later in the pregnancy. I do think that there should be some laws regarding when one can have an abortion, because where do we draw the line of deciding that baby’s life should be protected? Some say at conception…but I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone at the other end of the spectrum saying that a women should always be able to choose, even if she were 8 months pregnant. So I think it’s fair to say that some legislation could be made towards making abortion illegal after a certain date (and this does exist already).
But otherwise, my libertarian self believes that abortion should never be illegal. I don’t feel the government should really be involved in that. Abortion will always exist, just like prostitution and drugs will. We can either accept that, and manage the “problem” in the best fashion possible (in areas with legalized prostitution, the spreading of venereal diseases is managed a lot better with mandatory testing etc. and in areas where drugs are legalized the health problems associated with them are also managed through needle exchanges, etc, not to mention drug related crime is not as high) I think that the abortion “problem” needs to be managed too: it should never be illegal, but when I see it being framed as a women’s rights issue, I feel that it is a failure. I feel that every woman should have the right to control their reproductive health BEFORE getting pregnant…not just AFTER. I just feel that the abortion issue is being muddied by ignoring the fact that the majority of abortions are birth-control and could have thus been prevented.
I do acknowledge that there is an extreme on the pro-life side that thinks that abstinence is the answer to the problem…and that is also a failure.
Here is one study that I found, but there are many more out there, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle :
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf
I normally stay out of abortion discussions, because there is so little discussion. I tend to see it as a rather black and white issue. (A fetus without working neural tissue is not a person. Forced gestation is slavery.)
Having said that, there is a whole range of discussion where I am persuadable. When does personhood begin? What restrictions are appropriate in the process of obtaining an abortion before and after personhood begins?
Even more to the point, I am pro-life on the non-abortion issues, and the use of "pro-life" as a code phrase to mean "protecting a lump of genetically human tissue" is offensive to me. I would really like to see more genuine pro-life activity, like addressing the diseases that are endemic to impoverished parts of the world, or combating drug addiction as a health crisis. In the same vein, I would also like to see reductions in the number of abortions. But here, again, many "pro-life" supporters often offend me by being anti-birth control and anti-adoption.
@Jon
No, not because the pro-choice crowd, including the President I voted for and almost certainly will again in 3 1/2 years, is filled with baby killers. It's because Obama believes a woman should have a right to an abortion for the entire nine months of her term, or, as he puts it, trusts the woman with that decision.
In the example I provided, a woman decides to have an abortion several months into the pregnancy because she has split from the father, or she lost her job, or some other circumstance that is not about protecting the life of the mother, but would make her less likely to want the child if she decides she can no longer care for it the way she wants.
What a loosely-worded health exception to a late-term abortion restriction does is to allow the mother to make a decision at that point which Barack Obama already believes the law should allow her to make for herself. That's why, when abortion came up at that gen elec debate, and Obama tried to co-opt McCain's position provided the exception for the life and health of the mother, McCain unappealingly put "health" in air quotes and pissed all over it. Anyone who has been in the debate with a pro-choice politician knows they come around to any ban of any kind only when a full, no-questions-asked "health provision" is inserted, or as it's known in pro-life circles, a "where there's a will, there's a way" clause.
We can have an honest disagreement about that, but I'm not throwing bombs and calling Barack Obama a baby killer. Based on his voting record, he clearly doesn't believe a woman having an abortion at any point is killing a baby. If you do, I'm wondering why you're defending him.
As far as your question on jail time, if a woman is 8 months pregnant, and her doctor says "sure, no problem, I'll perform the abortion" after the mother admits she's worried she won't have the money to care for the baby and doesn't want to go through with child birth anymore, then that doctor should go to prison for some length of time in my view. That's, you know, kinda consistent with wanting abortion to be illegal, and perform that particular abortion is currently illegal.
But to avoid that sticky situation, all these restrictions generally come with a vague health exception, so a doctor can just say he diagnosed acute anxiety and not have to worry about it.
I am with Obama or somewhat to his left on 90-95% of the major positions he has. Abortion just isn't one of them.
I simply cannot take this graph seriously, since there is no option for "no opinion".
I would bet that a good third of the population really does not care to be forced to declare whether abortion should be legal or illegal. This would include those who see abortion as something that probably should be legal but who have religious reservations about it.
Any poll which excludes nuances of opinion, and there are many on this issue, falls way short of representing what people really think.
What would a 2nd order polynomial fit look like?
I agree that in the abstract ("Are you for or against abortion?"), many will be 'anti-abortion'. When it starts to get close to home, then the opinion can and will change.
Anecdotal, but helping to show my argument:
One of my co-workers and his wife did not plan on having children. They also were very anti-abortion in any situation, and not very quiet about that belief, in fact they were strident in their voicing of that opinion.
When the wife became pregnant, though, and they found that the child would suffer from extreme birth defects, with a life expectancy measured in days or weeks after birth, they had to decide if their anti-abortion beliefs were viable in their situation.
Eventually an abortion was performed.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
I had an abortion in Juarez in 1967. I had been raped, and it took me until the 3rd trimester to get the money together. I was afraid to get an illegal abortion in the states, because a friend had hemorrhaged and died.
The only reason people may be ambiguous about abortion rights is that the vast majority of them have never had to make those awful choices. Those who did don't talk about it. We don't tell our stories. Maybe if we did, more people would understand.
There are a lot of hypothetical situations on this thread that make the abortion decision sound like the Wild West. Women have the moral agency to make sober, considered decisions concerning their own fertility and have been doing so forever. The actual 2006 US numbers from Guttmacher bear this out:
90% of all abortions occur in the first trimester. 60% of these occur before the 8th week.
10% of all abortions occur in the 2nd trimester. The majority of 2nd trimester abortions are for low income women and teenagers. For low income: 60% say that although they wanted an earlier procedure, their delays were due to the time it took to raise money and make arrangements. For teenagers: teenagers are overrepresented in this group because they either don’t recognize pregnancy symptoms or are in denial. They are just kids.
1% of abortions occur in the last trimester. Virtually all third trimester abortions occur after ultrasound or other testing finds a fetal abnormality, fetal health concern, or a maternal health risk. In other words, third trimester abortions are grieved as the deaths of wanted and welcomed babies and are by no means undertaken frivolously.
One final number: Catholics account for 27% of all abortions, no doubt partly because the Catholic Church outlaws contraception.
The Catholic Church and some other religions condemn abortion, but here’s a partial list of religions that don‘t condemn it. The official statements from these churches pretty much have the common theme that women’s reproductive freedom is the only moral position.
Episcopal Church USA
Presbyterian Church USA
United Church of Christ
United Methodist Church
Unitarian Universalists
American Baptist Church USA
American Friends Church (Quakers)
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Conservative Judaism
Reform Judaism
Excerpts of the official statements are collected at http://www.rcrc.org/pdf/We_affirm.pdf
As far as I know, which I'm the first to admit isn't much, abortion is rarely taken lightly by the women that are faced with the choice.
Caution, anecdote ahead:
A friend of mine who has/had very liberal views on the issue was faced with the prospect of being an unwed mother in college, made the gut-wrenching decision to have an abortion. About 10 years after the fact she confided in me that she was still haunted by that decision. Rationally, she knew she had made the right decision and, if faced with the same situation would do the same thing again. Yet, the decision has been causing emotional distress ever since.
She still strongly believes that it is a woman's right to choose. But that doesn't mean that choice is ever easy.
End anecdote
My friend's and Shery's stories and others like it, have me convinced that this is something that is entirely up to the woman. As much as I would like the prospective dads to have a say, this isn't about them.
I'm convinced that in most cases abortion will only be used as a last resort. We just have to make sure it's safely available.
I'm a Generation Y'er. Non-practicing but very spiritual Catholic. I'm with our President on both issues, and kind of at odds with the rest of Generation Y according to your analysis.
Abortion: No ban on partial birth. No Born Alive Infants Protection Act.
Same-sex marriage: No gay marriage. Civil unions are okay.
Gay marriage just doesn't sit right with me. I just think it's always been one man and one woman and it always should be. Seriously, what's wrong with civil unions?
Anyway, I'm proud to stand with President Obama on both of these. He's got it right.
I’ve always thought the way that certain issues are bundled together on the right and the left is not necessarily always consistent. I’m a 29 year-old (gen Y, whatever that means) who is very liberal on most social issues (pro gay marriage, legalizing pot and other drugs, etc.) but have a mixed view on abortion.
I believe it should be fully legal for the first trimester, and thereafter legal only for health reasons. I recognize some will abuse the health exception, but believe it’s important to have for the cases when there is indeed a legitimate health need for abortion.
My viewpoint on abortion is not for religious reasons, as I am an Atheist/Agnostic. Actually, my viewpoint in part comes from my secular beliefs. What’s known as the “soul” has be proven to be of physical origin, not metaphysical origin. Everything we are, thoughts, emotions, consciousness, memories, etc. has been proven, by decades of scientific evidence, to be purely the product of neurons and brain chemistry. After all, if the “soul” were not physical, a person’s personality wouldn’t change when they have a brain tumor removed, nor would drugs be able to change mood and perception.
Anyway, the point is, I don’t believe that Jesus shoots a metaphysical soul into a microscopic egg the moment a sperm cell penetrates its wall. Therefore, I put the real beginning of life at the point where a fetus attains some kind of true brain function, probably somewhere in the 2nd trimester. Before that it’s really no more conscious than a toenail.
Also, on a related issue, I’m extremely pro contraception, as this is the best way to prevent abortion. I’ve always thought it ironic that many of the anti-abortion forces also virulently oppose contraception, and this opposition to contraception actually increases the abortion rate. (IMO, the main reason the US has a higher abortion rate than many more socially liberal western countries)
Mitch said...
Same-sex marriage: No gay marriage. Civil unions are okay.
So, Mitch, you're A-OK with separate but equal (but in reality, UNequal)? You would probably think that Brown vs. Board of Education was an incorrect decision?
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Abortion is a question about when life begins, and balancing up the 'good' of the mother and foetus, deciding if the law has a right - or responsibility - to intervene. It's a debate with deep roots.
On the other hand, gay marriage is mainly a cultural issue. As the culture changes, so do people's attitudes towards gay marriage.
Gay marriage will probably cease to be a big issue within the next twenty years. Abortion will run and run.
countio: Silvio Berlusconi was rewarded at the countio for the European Parliament
Gallup is at it again, finding there are more pro-lifers:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx
My 1 (+/- 1) Cents: Personally, I think the government should enact civil unions as a government-recognized status between two people, regardless of gender. A man and a woman can have a civil union, or two people of the same gender can have one. Legally, it's all the same. Then the question of "marriage" should be left to the couple's religious beliefs and the church to which they belong. "Marriage" is a sanctimonious union in the eyes of God - the government shouldn't have any part in it.
Now, seeing as how the semantics of the terms will never be set aside, realistically speaking I don't see them setting aside the term "marriage" for purely secular, government-recognized unions. It's just too engrained in our collective psyche, and for many it's that golden egg.
As for abortion, I'm one of those who struggles for a nuanced opinion and is still trying to figure out where everything fits. (It doesn't help that I'm 50% atheist and 50% very spiritual.) While I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose, there is a point when it's no longer just about her, there is, in fact, a living being inside of her that should be considered. Now, as to what point it ceases being a collection of cells and becomes an actual person, I agree with President Obama that it's "above my pay grade". I'm not God, and short of that, I don't believe there's any true way to know for certain. My brother had what I consider to be a good thought, though, and he pointed out that since we don't really know, isn't it better to err on the side of protecting and valuing the new life over killing it?
I think we should focus more on preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place through proper education and contraception, and start with some middle ground on abortions. Abortion should remain legal, but the further along you are in your pregnancy, the more difficult it is to justify and prove "necessary", up to a point where it's all but banned. Education about other options (carry to term then up for adoption) should be thoroughly explored and encouraged at all points.
I hate the concept of abortion, but still think it's a necessary evil in a free society. Raise our children so they shouldn't be needed, but leave the door open for necessity and freedom.
Well, people don't like abortion in places where they need as many people as they can get, such as South Dakota, and they think abortion's fine where there's too many people, such as Brooklyn. Same on gay marriage. We might be be better off not having to eat each others' values all the time.
There is an increasing trend of atheists in generation Y.
There is more support for gay marriage in generation Y.
Generation Y is more liberal that older generations.
Why is generation Y more pro-life?I've posted about this before: http://www.turntheclockforward.org/2007/03/those-wacky-kids-baffle-the-new-york-times/
This has been the trend for a few years now.
It's possible because not all people who oppose abortion do so for conservative and/or religious reasons.
I'll step up for the allegedly rare "abortion always legal at will" contingent. A late stage fetus has a more developed brain, but I'm unconvinced that any meaningful personhood could have developed, in the absence of any shaping input or interaction with the world or other people. I view personhood as something that grows, not as a binary, and personally I would start thinking about criminal penalties around the time a child starts talking. But I can easily understand disagreement or even horror at my position, and legitimate doubts about consciousness and third trimester brains.
OTOH, I view concern for the early embryo, before it even has any neural tissue, to be anti-scientific. We don't understand the nature or mechanism of consciousness; we do know it seems entirely correlated with the behavior of the brain.
"Marriage" is a sanctimonious union in the eyes of GodOnly in the views of some Christians. If you look at the anthropology, marriage is a lot broader, and a lot more down to earth -- private, contractual, inter-family business, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#European_marriages
One last comment --
has vegetarianism or support for animal rights been increasing in Gen Y, and if so, does that demographic overlap/correlate much with the alleged increase in pro-life positions? I find it easier to make a consistent case against aborting partially developed fetuses if one also protects animals with demonstrable capacities to feel pain and fear. Conversely, if one is okay with medical research on chimpanzees capable of partially learning language, I find it hard to defend a fetus whose opinion of the world is "..."
As a woman who has had an abortion and who has run a (pro-choice, non-judgmental, no pressure) abortion information website for several years, this is my take:
Younger generations are more likely to be pro-life - because they're less likely to have had an unplanned pregnancy yet.
You'd be amazed at how often people who are Totally Pro-Life reassess their beliefs on abortion when they are actually in the position of needing one. ;)
With abortion rights, experience matters. It's easy to be a self-righteous, arrogant absolutist pro-lifer when you're a 16-yr-old virgin. When you're a 21-yr-old pregnant woman/guy with a pregnant girlfriend, on the other hand....
I should also mention that abortion rights are more likely to face ongoing societal judgment because they have their basis in women having sex. Our society in general is very down on women having sex.
@Hannah,
"Younger generations are more likely to be pro-life - because they're less likely to have had an unplanned pregnancy yet."
Interesting point, and probably very true, yet I'm not sure that gets us anywhere. Just because people have second thoughts and compromise their principles for reality-grounded reasons doesn't mean that such a gut-wrenching decision doesn't scar them for life.
Maybe it's good that younger generations are more against abortion because it increases the chances that they'll try to be responsible and not create the need for an abortion. I can understand your argument that I might compromise my principles when push comes to shove.
I'm assuming that you wouldn't call people who feel bad about abortion and who would never forgive themselves for making that decision as "self-righteous, arrogant absolutist pro-lifers".
Also what to you is self-righteous arrogance might objectively be someone trying to act from their morals. (I.E. the Christian who says god bless you to an atheist, who responds with expletives).
I always am leery of people who argue "oh you're inexperienced, so that means your perspective has no merit". You're going to have to prove your argument rather than play the experience card.
Gallup’s poll is missing an important part of the equation: Generation Jones, born 1954-1965, between the Boomers and Generation X. Google Generation Jones, and you’ll see it’s gotten a lot of media attention, and many top commentators from many top publications and networks (Washington Post, Time magazine, NBC, Newsweek, ABC, etc.) now specifically use this term.
Unlike pollsters who are up with current generational trends, Gallup is still using old school generational delineations. By lumping part of GenJones with Boomers, and part with GenX, Gallup’s generational data is seriously flawed. Several top pollsters---including Mason-Dixon and Rasmussen--- have shown that GenJones’ political behavior and voting patterns are clearly distinct from its surrounding generations.
It is important to distinguish between the post-WWII demographic boom in births vs. the cultural generations born during that era. Generations are a function of the common formative experiences of its members, not the fertility rates of its parents. Many experts now believe it breaks down this way:
DEMOGRAPHIC boom in babies: 1946-1964
Baby Boom GENERATION: 1942-1953
Generation Jones: 1954-1965
Generation X: 1966-1978
Here is a relatively recent op-ed in USA TODAY about GenJones as the new generation of leadership:
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20090127/column27_st.art.htm
It's easy to be a self-righteous, arrogant absolutist pro-lifer when you're a 16-yr-old virgin. When you're a 21-yr-old pregnant woman/guy with a pregnant girlfriend, on the other hand....The group in question are 18 to 29-year-olds.
Jon and Jen R., I don’t see where Hannah was saying that "oh you're inexperienced, so that means your perspective has no merit" or mentions "18 to 29-year-olds".
I read Hannah’s comment as saying that no one knows how they will act in any situation until they are actually confronting the situation. We all daydream that we would be a hero and rush into the burning building and save the fire victim, but in real life we might call 911 and wait for the fire department. No one *really* knows how they would act until they are there. At any age.
ConnectingTheDots: There's one other glaring flaw in Gallup's methodology. Their sample was split evenly between Democrats and Republicans, even though the gap in party identification is the largest it's been in decades.
Previous Gallup polls this year sampled 8% more Democrats, which still under-represents the gap, but this one was 32% Dems and 32% Reps. The skewing effect of this inexplicable sampling decision is quite obvious.
http://www.allgov.com/ViewNews/Misleading_Story_of_the_Month__Majority_of_Americans_Pro_Life_90520
kudos to this discussion for being calm and thoughtful on such a divisive subject
i heard on CNN this week that on most topics, the more advanced the technology/education level, the more the population leans left. but not so on abortion, it appears that, the more advanced the technology becomes, the more we're leaning right. apparently, all those high-tech sonograms are influencing public opinion. AND that one reason why the under 25 crowd might be polling more pro-life is that they are the first generation to count among their baby pictures some taken pre-birth. as a lifelong pro-choice woman, i found this fascinating. however, i came of age when abortions were newly legal and can vividly remember when teen-age girls in california had to get their abusive parents permission to get an abortion, and i never want us to go back to those days.
also-i think hannah's a very wise woman
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
The survey found that consumer 3G wholesale china from the crowd of view, the buyer 25 to 40 years old mainly white-collar workers, accounting for about 40%, followed by consumer groups of students, accounting for about three into. According to statistics, 3G wholesale products in sales, compared with a 2G mobile phone sales are still a wide gap between, but since June has been, 3G mobile phones increase in the average monthly buy products for more than 50%, "11" period due to holiday business, the increase of more than 150%. Pk that the "11" after the peak sales of 3G handsets likely to usher in more stable growth.
From cell phones users to see the specific situation of occupational segmentation in 2009, accounting for 19.5% of students dropped 21.2 percent over last year, other types of occupations than those last year, the proportion of Internet users cheap cell phones increase. White collar crowd from last year's 29.2% increase to 38.9% this year, accounting for 9.7 percentage points up to replace the student groups cellphone users as one of the biggest occupational hierarchy; blue-collar crowd from last year's 13.9% to 18.9% this year, accounting for rose by 5.0 percentage points, showing that mobile phones users by a group of students to the occupational groups a significant trend in the development. Ereli advice that, cheap cell phones and mobile phone users Internet users monthly income distribution of age, education, occupational distribution has strong correlation with high spending capacity of white-collar workers and some students in the crowd will be a huge cell phone china online potential consumer groups.
By comparing the traditional Internet users, Internet users to iResearch found that the traditional white-collar-based, cell phones wholesale, corporate general staff accounted for 18.9%, higher than the 5.6% of the wholesale cell phones users accounting; and discount cell phones users in the years students and blue-collar workers accounted for significantly more than the traditional Internet users, respectively, accounting for 19.5% and 18.9%, higher than the traditional Internet users Students and blue-collar workers accounted for 7.8% and 5.1% respectively.
Post a Comment