This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2014/apr/30/why-are-women-more-opposed-to-abortion

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Why are women more opposed to abortion? Why are women more opposed to abortion?
(about 1 hour later)
It's often assumed that women support abortion rights while men seek to deny them - when Jeremy Hunt suggested reducing the legal abortion limit to 12 weeks, for example, The Telegraph remarked that his comments "could have an impact on the Conservatives’ attempts to boost their support among female voters." That makes it all the more surprising that so much of the abuse directed at Josie Cunningham, monstered for apparently considering an abortion to appear on Big Brother, came from women. But is the assumption correct in the first place? It is often assumed that women support abortion rights while men seek to deny them when Jeremy Hunt suggested reducing the legal abortion limit to 12 weeks, for example, The Telegraph remarked that his comments "could have an impact on the Conservatives’ attempts to boost their support among female voters". That makes it all the more surprising that so much of the abuse directed at Josie Cunningham, monstered for apparently considering an abortion in order to appear on Big Brother, came from women. But is the assumption correct in the first place?
Polling on abortion, as highlighted by UKPollingReport back in 2012,Polling on abortion, as highlighted by UKPollingReport back in 2012,
is pretty clear when it comes to the attitudes of men and women:is pretty clear when it comes to the attitudes of men and women:
“Polls consistently show … that women are more likely than men to support“Polls consistently show … that women are more likely than men to support
a reduction on the abortion limit. In the 2011 YouGov poll 28% of men supporteda reduction on the abortion limit. In the 2011 YouGov poll 28% of men supported
a reduction, 46% of women did. In the 2012 YouGov poll 24% of men supported aa reduction, 46% of women did. In the 2012 YouGov poll 24% of men supported a
reduction, 49% of women did. In the Angus Reid poll 35% of men supported areduction, 49% of women did. In the Angus Reid poll 35% of men supported a
reduction in the limit, 59% of women did. In the ICM poll 45% of men supportedreduction in the limit, 59% of women did. In the ICM poll 45% of men supported
a reduction to 20 weeks, 59% of women did.”a reduction to 20 weeks, 59% of women did.”
Drilling down into theDrilling down into the
numbers doesn’t reveal anything untoward. YouGov’s 2012 poll suggests that slightly more men than women want to ban abortion completely (8%numbers doesn’t reveal anything untoward. YouGov’s 2012 poll suggests that slightly more men than women want to ban abortion completely (8%
vs 5%), but the result isn’t statistically very significant, and the effectvs 5%), but the result isn’t statistically very significant, and the effect
disappears in the Angus Reid poll (the question isn't asked in ICM's). The YouGov numbers are lower than those found by Angus Reid and ICM, but the gender differences are still consistent.disappears in the Angus Reid poll (the question isn't asked in ICM's). The YouGov numbers are lower than those found by Angus Reid and ICM, but the gender differences are still consistent.
Other polls have appeared since that article, and they show the same thing. A 2013 YouGov poll on behalf of the University ofOther polls have appeared since that article, and they show the same thing. A 2013 YouGov poll on behalf of the University of
Lancaster found 26% of men supporting a reduction or ban, versus 43% of women.Lancaster found 26% of men supporting a reduction or ban, versus 43% of women.
Interestingly, 53% of women in that survey believed that life begins atInterestingly, 53% of women in that survey believed that life begins at
conception, against 35% of men – not exactly ‘every sperm is sacred', conception, against 35% of men – not exactly "every sperm is sacred",
but not too far off.but not too far off.
The difference even holds up when you poll Catholics. A second University of Lancaster survey carried out last autumn found that 40% of Catholic men supported a reduction or ban, against 57% of Catholic women. Exactly the same difference in percentage points that they found among the general population.The difference even holds up when you poll Catholics. A second University of Lancaster survey carried out last autumn found that 40% of Catholic men supported a reduction or ban, against 57% of Catholic women. Exactly the same difference in percentage points that they found among the general population.
Single polls are always dubious of course, and small changes from poll to poll don’t usually mean a lot – they’re just random noise. The failure of many journalists to understand that is the reason we getSingle polls are always dubious of course, and small changes from poll to poll don’t usually mean a lot – they’re just random noise. The failure of many journalists to understand that is the reason we get
headlines every week saying things like 'Labour up 3 points' or 'Labour down headlines every week saying things like "Labour up 3 points" or "Labour down
2 points' instead of more accurate but less interesting ones such as, 2 points" instead of more accurate but less interesting ones such as,
“voters still think basically the same thing they did three month ago.”“voters still think basically the same thing they did three month ago.”
We’re not talking about smallWe’re not talking about small
differences here or individual polls here though – we have multiple polls from multiple different polling companies,differences here or individual polls here though – we have multiple polls from multiple different polling companies,
commissioned by a range of different interests over a decade. Surecommissioned by a range of different interests over a decade. Sure
there’s some noise and some variation over time, but a big difference remains no matter what. It looks pretty settled to me.there’s some noise and some variation over time, but a big difference remains no matter what. It looks pretty settled to me.
So around 24 to 35% of men want to put moreSo around 24 to 35% of men want to put more
restrictions on abortion, against 43 to 59% of women - a consistent gap of around twenty percentage points. That raises some pretty restrictions on abortion, against 43 to 59% of women a consistent gap of around 20 percentage points. That raises some pretty
big implications, the most obvious being that if it were left to women to votebig implications, the most obvious being that if it were left to women to vote
on the issue, with men out of the picture, there’s a good chance that theon the issue, with men out of the picture, there’s a good chance that the
result would be in favour of restricting abortion. On the flip side, if onlyresult would be in favour of restricting abortion. On the flip side, if only
men voted, they’d almost certainly vote in favour of women’s reproductivemen voted, they’d almost certainly vote in favour of women’s reproductive
rights.rights.
Why should this be? The polls tell us very little – the people who commissioned them seem more interested in which policies people support than in whyWhy should this be? The polls tell us very little – the people who commissioned them seem more interested in which policies people support than in why
they support them. The only real clue is in the University of Lancaster’s findingthey support them. The only real clue is in the University of Lancaster’s finding
that more women believe life begins at conception. It makes sense that if you believe that, you’re going to think twice aboutthat more women believe life begins at conception. It makes sense that if you believe that, you’re going to think twice about
termination, but it still doesn't explain why more women think that in the first place.termination, but it still doesn't explain why more women think that in the first place.
Husband-and-wife economists George Akerlof andHusband-and-wife economists George Akerlof and
Janet Yellen touched on the problem in a famous (and controversial) 1996 paper on the impacts of new 'reproductive technology' in the late 20th century. In it, they suggested that the availability of abortion changed men's attitudes to unplanned parenthood, as neatly expressed by an unnamed 'Internet contributor': "Since the decision to have the child is solely up to the mother, I don't see how both parents have responsibility to that child." Janet Yellen touched on the problem in a famous (and controversial) 1996 paper on the impacts of new "reproductive technology" in the late 20th century. In it, they suggested that the availability of abortion changed men's attitudes to unplanned parenthood, as neatly expressed by an unnamed "internet contributor": "Since the decision to have the child is solely up to the mother, I don't see how both parents have responsibility to that child."
Where prior to the 1960s men would have felt culturally-bound to ‘do the right thing’ by sexual partners who became Where prior to the 1960s men would have felt culturally bound to "do the right thing" by sexual partners who became
pregnant, medicine now provided them with a convenient get-out clause. It's therefore not that surprising that they'd resist any changes that would threaten that. pregnant, medicine now provided them with a convenient get-out clause. It is therefore not that surprising that they'd resist any changes that would threaten that.
As for women, there’s the heavy weight ofAs for women, there’s the heavy weight of
centuries of cultural baggage and social expectation. Women today are stillcenturies of cultural baggage and social expectation. Women today are still
defined in terms of sex and motherhood, and 'radicals' who reject that ideal are defined in terms of sex and motherhood, and "radicals" who reject that ideal are
dismissed as unfeminine, cruel or somehow defective. "I don't want to have a baby" remains a significant statement, liable to invite scrutiny. A paper on the experiences of childless women in Australia is titled, "‘Unnatural’, ‘Unwomanly’, ‘Uncreditable’ and ‘Undervalued’."dismissed as unfeminine, cruel or somehow defective. "I don't want to have a baby" remains a significant statement, liable to invite scrutiny. A paper on the experiences of childless women in Australia is titled, "‘Unnatural’, ‘Unwomanly’, ‘Uncreditable’ and ‘Undervalued’."
Magazines and newspapers enjoy nothing more than making examples of women who sacrificed motherhood for their careers and later regretted it. They idolise 'role models' like Kate Middleton or the Queen, ghostly beings devoid of opinion Magazines and newspapers enjoy nothing more than making examples of women who sacrificed motherhood for their careers and later regretted it. They idolise "role models" such as Kate Middleton or the Queen, ghostly beings devoid of opinion
or sentiment whose sole purpose in life is to be impregnated by the royal blueor sentiment whose sole purpose in life is to be impregnated by the royal blue
sperm of a princely pecker. That is what a woman is supposed to be – a declawed pet, mind and body airbrushed until nothing is left but a smiling womb. When we breed women to breed, it’s not surprising that so many balk at the idea of abortion.sperm of a princely pecker. That is what a woman is supposed to be – a declawed pet, mind and body airbrushed until nothing is left but a smiling womb. When we breed women to breed, it’s not surprising that so many balk at the idea of abortion.
If Kate Middleton had chosen to terminate her pregnancy, it wouldIf Kate Middleton had chosen to terminate her pregnancy, it would
have been one of the biggest political statements of the 21st century – the 9/11 of the culture wars (and ahave been one of the biggest political statements of the 21st century – the 9/11 of the culture wars (and a
catastrophic blow to Britain’s tedious bunting industry). She wouldn’t ofcatastrophic blow to Britain’s tedious bunting industry). She wouldn’t of
course, and she probably couldn’t if she wanted to. Britain simply wouldn’tcourse, and she probably couldn’t if she wanted to. Britain simply wouldn’t
tolerate it, and that says a lot about how far attitudes to women and reproduction have really come in the last tolerate it, and that says a lot about how far attitudes to women and reproduction have really come in the last 60 years.
sixty years. So which is it? Internalised sexism, men's liberation, fundamentally different ideas about the point at which life begins, or something else entirely? I doubt only one factor is at work, but it seems that we lack a definitive answer. And that's a shame, because in the ongoing battle of ideas it seems like a very important question to ask.
So which is it? Internalized sexism, men's liberation, fundamentally different ideas about the point that life begins, or something else entirely? I doubt only one factor is at work, but it seems that we lack a definitive answer. And that's a shame, because in the ongoing battle of ideas it seems like a very important question to ask.
@mjrobbins@mjrobbins