Thursday, May 31, 2012

The "75%" and the pro-life surge

National Review On-Line has a nice symposium on the recent surge in public support for the pro-life position. The pro-abortion view has dropped seven points in a year.

What's up?

The participants in the symposium discuss a variety of explanations-- the vibrancy and manifest rightness of the pro-life movement, the increasing availability of pre-natal ultrasounds, the stridency and plain ugliness of the pro-abortion movement, among others.

These all matter, for sure. But I do note that much of the pro-life ascendency is among the young. There is growing and passionate support for defense of innocent life among young people.

There is a reason for that, a reason that transcends ultrasound technology and marketing of ideologies.

One quarter of children conceived in the U.S. since 1973 have been aborted. Young people today are the survivors of Roe. Literally the survivors. Every person under the age of thirty-nine is one of the 75%-- the fraction of children conceived who were not aborted.

Young people are beginning to understand abortion in a way that is quite different from the way their parents understood abortion. Young people are increasingly pro-life because they are realizing that the abortion battle is their battle.

Abortion is personal for the young, in a way it has not been for us older folks. Young people-- the 75% of children who survived Roe-- understand which side in the abortion battle fought to protect their lives, and which side was willing to forfeit their lives for profit and for convenience.  


  1. Michael,

    It's hardly a symposium of 'experts' when all the people giving opinions are anti-abortion. Not even for National Review.

    But anyhow, off topic. You still haven't continued your discussion of Philip Kitcher's essay on Scientism you started over a week ago.

    It looks as though my prediction that you'd drop the series has come true since it was pointed out to you that he's not actually an ally of yours; he's actually a Darwinist and probably also an atheist (actually almost certainly, going on his book 'the Ethical Project').

    I don't think that you'd realized it, and if you had, you wouldn't have referred to the essay as being 'magnificent' and 'brilliant'. Instead you would have referred to a notorious Darwinist scoring an own goal ...

    You last comment on that thread was a fabricated quote 'more ridiculous than Darwinism'. You've taken quote mining to a new low, stooping to quote fabrication. If you didn't know before, if you put something in inverted commas, it's a quote, something someone has actually written or spoken.

  2. bach: there's one sequel in the queue, possibly two. I like to keep you waiting.

  3. Is this Anonymous guy Bachfiend?


  4. I suspect so. bach is the only person who calls me "Michael".

  5. Michael,

    Your name isn't 'Michael'? The sidebar has a lot of people calling you Michael Egnor.

    I won't call you Mr Egnor, because it's disrespectful. Nor will I call you Dr or Professor Egnor, because you aren't blogging in your role as a tenured professor or a neurosurgeon, and I don't have enough respect of you to extend such courtesy to you (by the way, I address PZ Myers as PZ, because it's apparently an accepted nickname in his community, and is actually a term of respect).

    What do other people call you? How do you want to be addressed?.

    1. I like "Michael". I just noted how unusual it is that I am called by my full first name.

      But I like it.

    2. "[...]and I don't have enough respect of you to extend such courtesy to you[...]"
      What a rude and completely ignorant thing to write.
      Smacks of jealousy.

      You must be doing something right, Dr Egnor.
      Keep up the good work!

  6. Love the title of your blog Dr Egnor and thank you for being a voice of reason and sanity in an ever-increasing world of insanity.

    Take care and God Bless

  7. As usual, Egnor cites misleading numbers to buttress a lie. When one looks beyond how people label themselves, one finds that the pro-life position is actually losing ground. But that doesn't stop Egnor from lying. Because that's what he does.

    1. Strange.
      The polls I have seen forward the opposite, Anon.
      All our stats show an increase in the pro-life camp. The reason is thought to be connected to facts the sex selection controversy has brought out: Pretty much exactly what Trish outlined in one of her comments. The converting question is simple, yet profound.
      If an unborn child's sex may be determined, then it is obviously a SEPARATE living being. It is not simply 'part' of a woman. Her kidneys are not sexed, her lungs are just lungs, but her BABY has a sex. Women are not so STUPID as to not make this connection, and add to this they are quickly becoming aware that the pro-abortion camp is not a 'rights' issue, but a EUGENICS program. It is a program that is targeting specific groups for 'population reduction' in the name of 'sustainability', the largest of which is WOMEN.
      As more women become aware of these facts the pro abortion groups lose appeal and favour.
      The femicide is an issue that is not going away.

    2. Anonymous,

      The overwhelming majority of the polls on your linked-to website are in agreement with this blog entry. It seems it's you, not Dr. Egnor, who has selectively choose numbers to buttress a lie.

      Those who are o.k. with the mass murdering of unborn babies are also o.k. with lying. Who'da thunk it?

  8. The pro-life surge is Pelagian. Augustinians don't care about morality since they are justified by grace alone. Augustinians can kill all the babies they want and still believe they will go to heaven because of some sill 'grace' thing.