From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:07:38 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <21336@rpp386.lonestar.org> jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <00713484942@elgamy.sccsi.com> elg@elgamy.sccsi.com (Eric Lee Green) writes:
>>Latest Texas poll, reported in the Houston Chronicle today (page 4A,
>>8-10-92): 67% of Texans believe that the decision to abort or not should be
>>the mother's. 65% of Texas Republicans feel that way.
>>
>>I suggest that the only way you could say that "polls say" that voters are
>>"pro-life" would be if you had a poll which read, "Do you believe that
>>women should murder babies?". Most voters here in Texas, hardly a liberal
>>state, seem to be very much pro-choice -- believing in leaving the decision
>>in the hands of the women, rather than reinstating it in law.

>BUT WHAT WAS THE QUESTION THEY ASKED!

>You can't just post poll results and then say "Well, that says that 65% of
>Texas Republicans are pro-choice".  It says that 65% of Texas Republicans
>agreed with the question they were asked.  And you aren't telling us what
>that question was!

>The polls often use questions like, "Should abortion be legal under any
>circumstances?" and the respondent scratches his or her head and thinks.
>"Well, rape is one circumstance that I think abortion should be legal
>under.  The life of the mother is another.  And severe genetic defects
>yet a third.  So I suppose that abortion should be legal under some
>circumstances."  The pollster dutifully checks off the YES box and goes
>on to the next person.  Then the pollster reports that 90% of the people
>surveyed said YES, and the paper reports that 90% of the people are
>pro-abortion.

Nonsense, John.  Oh, I don't doubt that a lot of anti-abortion groups
use this sort of questioning to arrive at their propaganda numbers,
but most reputable pollsters don't.  

Is English your first language?  I ask this because you seem to have
some real problems with it (on top of all your 'redefinitions' of
words and phrases).  I would think that most people would interpret
your hypothetical question to be exactly the reverse of what you had
your hypothetical respondent do.  It's all in the ordering of the
clauses.  I would interpret what you asked as being equivalent to
asking if there are any circumstances under which abortion SHOULDN'T
be permitted; i.e., "Should abortion be permitted under all
circumstances," where 'any circumstances' is its common usage from
such phrases as "I would not do that under any circumstances".  To get
the interpretation you came up with, I would expect the question to be
worded, "Are there any circumstances under which abortion should be
legal?"

Hmmm, perhaps this explains your problems?  You just aren't precise
enough in your use or understanding of language?



-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.