claude-fischer

A Berkeley professor wonders why more Americans don’t accept abortion

Implicit in most pro-abortion commentary is a certain level of frustration that there remain people who disagree with them. “It’s the 21st century and the Supreme Court has spoken; can’t you anti-choice yahoos get with the program?” This leads to all sorts of outlandish speculation about what really makes pro-lifers tick.

Professor Claude Fischer

Yesterday, UC Berkeley sociology professor Claude Fischer published his thoughts on the “abortion puzzle,” attempting to figure out why Americans are growing “notably more laissez-faire on most sexual issues,” but not abortion:

Before the Roe v. Wade decision on behalf of abortion rights perhaps 25% to 30% of Americans were inclined to say yes [abortion is acceptable for any reason]. Then opinions shifted a bit in the liberal direction. Since that initial shift, however, the distribution of opinions has changed little. The trend since Roe v. Wade is displayed in the blue line in the graph below. About 37% of Americans said yes to abortion on demand at the end of the 1970s and about 41% said yes at the end of the 2000s.

Contrast that to the change, three times greater, in the percentage who said that “sex relations before marriage… [is"] not wrong at all” — the red line — from about 38% at the end of the 1970s to about 51% at the end of the 2000s. And contrast that to the shift, five-fold greater, the green line, in the percentage of Americans who disagreed with the proposition that “Women should take care of running their homes and leave running the country up to men.” Another perspective on this compares generations of Americans. The generation born in the 1970s was far more liberal than the generation born in the 1910s on whether women should stay at home and on premarital sex (by over 30 points on each question). But the 1970s generation was only a bit more liberal on abortion than the 1910s generation (only 7 points more).   

To begin with, the premise’s question is flawed in two ways. First, while conservative and religious people are more likely to value stay-at-home motherhood, that’s a far cry from believing women should “leave running the country up to men.” If social conservatives didn’t believe in women having professional lives or political influence, then how do you explain Gov. Sarah Palin’s popularity among values voters, or the fact that the leaders of Live Action, American Life League, Americans United for Life, and the National Right to Life Committee are all women? This isn’t a recent phenomenon, as Fischer suggests—Mildred Jefferson helped found NRLC back in 1970, and Phyllis Schlafly has been an influential advocate for conservative cultural views since the sixties.

Second, abortion is not primarily a sexual issue. It’s related to sex because sex makes babies and abortion helps people have sex without becoming parents, but it’s only controversial because of what it destroys. But Fischer admits as much later in the piece, so more on this below.

Fischer cites a few sociologists who argue that disputes about gender roles lie at the heart of the abortion debate:

For one side, motherhood was the essence of being a woman, in which case abortion, especially abortion for convenience, devalued women’s purpose in life. For the other side, women were, or should be, essentially like men in ambitions and careers, in which case unwanted pregnancies undermined their freedom and the validity of their dreams.

But as time passed, the story goes, women’s reasons for getting abortions shifted, as did society’s conception of motherhood. With “how we understand motherhood…removed from the abortion debate, what remains are concerns about faith and about the personhood of the fetus”—“harder issues” to resolve than that of a woman’s place.

Could be. Or, it could be that personhood of the fetus was always pro-lifers’ chief concern, but the general public’s limited understanding of embryology made it easier to dismiss personhood as a strictly theological question. But as the science became clearer and ultrasound technology advanced, the truth of the pro-life message caught the attention of many who otherwise would have dismissed abortion as a private sexual matter.

Here’s a crazy idea: instead of writing books and commissioning studies about why pro-lifers believe certain things, maybe these guys could, y’know, ask us? Then again, the answer can’t possibly be as simple as “those people don’t want innocent babies murdered,” because that would raise some deeply disturbing questions about why pro-choicers don’t agree.

  • Oedipa Mossmoon

    It’s UC Berkeley.

    • Guest

      You’re right, but still, great article:)

  • The INFIDEL !

    Professor Claude Fischer should show how it’s done and abort himself. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/kickintheface Jacob Timothy Michael Hughes

    I’m going to disagree with you on one point: Abortion doesn’t keep people from becoming parents.

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      You are correct; my wording was imprecise.

      • Oedipa Mossmoon

         So’s your spelling. It’s B-E-R-K-E-L-E-Y.

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          Fixed. I promise to be more precise with my spelling if you promise to be more precise with my content.

    • Judith Goldsberry

      Correct. They are parents of dead babies.

    • Cjwalleser

      Correct. They are parents of a dead child.

  • Dbshelton504

    Simply stated, murder is WRONG!

  • Dbshelton504

    Because the moral Majority, yes, Majority know that a baby, ie, human life, or fetus, as some call them, is simply a little person with no voice of its own. We simply voice the very desire of all human existence to survive and thrive in the unborns stead!

  • NANNERS1939

    ABORTION IS “MURDERING” CHILDREN THAT GOD SO GRACEFULLY LOANS TO HUMAN BEINGS FOR AWHILE  !!  

    ANOTHER WORD FOR “MURDER” IS “KILLING”  !!

    IF SOMEONE KILLS AN ADULT THEY ARE USUALLY PUNISHED—SOMETIMES THEY HAVE TO GIVE THEIR LIFE FORTHE MURDER OF ANOTHER PERSON.

    A BABY IS A SMALL HUMAN AND TRIES TO PROTECT ITSELF WHILE THE ABORTION IS BEING PROFORMED—–

    ALAS THEY ARE NO MATCH FOR THESE POWERFUL SUCTION INSTRUMENTS THE ABORTIONIST USUALLY USE  !!

    ONE DAY THESE ABORTED BABIES WILL COME BACK TO HAUNT THE MOTHER, THE NURSE THAT HELPS,  AND THE DOCTORS THAT HAS DESTROYED A HUMANS LIFE  !!

    MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON THEM AND MAY HAVE MERCY ON AMERICA IF WE DO NOT SPEAK OUT AGAINST ABORTIONS  !!!

  • Hancoj1

    The pro-aborts are still trying to figure out their enemy?  Sun Tzu said many a time, to win you must know your enemy.

    Perhaps that’s why these idiots are loosing? 

  • Therese_carmella

    Education doesn’t equal intelligence.  You don’t have to think too hard, professor.  It’s a human being.  The end.   

  • Eminemlover1469

    I think it’s egotistical that you think we should so called get with the 21st century. Everyone has a right to their beliefs and opinions and for as long as I live I am going to defend unborn babies because life is beautiful and they have the right to live it.

  • Ralph Davis

    The bedrock issue is:  Is human life made in God’s image…and therefore sacred–JUST in its human-ness–or not?  If we are just a product of random chance–with billions of other planets in the universe teeming with life….than, why aren’t all humans disposable…to be valued ONLY according to their usefulness to the State?

    Social darwinism–evolution–is the totalitarian’s dream, giving them the rationale they always wanted, to use people like pawns…or canon fodder.  Abortion is just one of those results of the casual discarding of the fact of man made in God’s image.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patricia-O-Joppien/1362578911 Patricia O. Joppien

    I guess because we need more ugly creeps like Mr. Fisher

  • Judith Goldsberry

    We who value all human life are civilized.

  • Claude Fischer

    Thanks for picking up on my column. I hope it stimulates discussion. A couple of clarifications: One, these are not my arguments, but arguments by scholars who had recently published research on the changing nature of the abortion debate. (See original post here: http://madeinamericathebook.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/the-abortion-puzzle/ .) Two, the research — going back decades — has indeed involved asking people on both sides not only what they think but how they think about, and how their ideas developed. Most researchers on this topic have respected people on both sides.