^ @FStratford - agree with your last point and that shows up in the paper. The author did, indeed, flesh out the different interpretations and then followed up with questions about how to resolve the question. A synopsis of some of Chapter 4:
The online survey participants were asked “when does a human’s life begin” and were given several choices starting at fertilization and going to birth. It includes the option of heartbeat, brain activity, moment of feeling pain, moment of viability, etc. (see Footnote 193) The survey didn’t define those terms, but they are pretty self-explanatory; also, the author was getting an initial snapshot of viewpoints. The results were predictably skewed toward “viability” if one was “pro-choice” and “fertilization” if one were “pro-life.”
Participants were also asked how important is the question ‘When does a human’s life begin?’ in the U.S. Abortion Debate?” on a scale from 1 (“Unimportant”) to 10 (“Important”)." (see Footnote 183). A sizable majority responded that it is important and - furthermore - when asked about the importance of legal protection in the Abortion Debate for a zygote, a sizable majority responded that it’s important. Obviously the results were skewed toward “pro-life” respondents; however, both “pro-life” and “pro-choice” were 70-75% or higher. I’d add that “important” doesn’t mean the participant would change his/her viewpoint.
In addition, participants were asked which group is most qualified to answer the question ‘When does a human’s life begin?’ and were presented the following options: “Biologists”, “Philosophers”, “Religious Leaders”, “Supreme Court Justices”, and “Voters” (see Footnote 200). 80% of participants identified “Biologists,” and “pro-choice” were actually sizably more likely than “pro-life” to select this option. When asked “why?” the response was that “biologists were objective experts in the study of life” (see page 208).
Quoting from the text: “Overall, a majority of participants (64%) felt that a consensus of experts would agree on when life begins , but pro-choice participants (61%) were less likely to agree than pro-life participants (71%). However, the two sides disagreed on whether such a consensus would strengthen the pro-choice or pro-life side of the debate, as pro-choice participants (73%) believe it would support their side and pro-life participants (79%) believe it would support theirs.” (See pp. 208-209 and footnotes).
Participants were then asked what the biologists would respond, using the options noted from Footnote 193 (the same options as participants were given). Only 23% of “pro-choice” responded with the option Fertilization compared to 58% of “pro-life”; however, over half of “pro-choice” and practically all of “pro-life” responded with some point before viability. See page 209.
Finally, they were asked to opine, based on their own understanding of biology, when a human life begins “from a biological perspective.” The results were similar to their views on what biologists would respond (pp. 209-210).
So it appears that they were questioned in detail on this issue and that they were allowed to define what they meant by “when does life begin?” They were also allowed to opine on who can best answer the question, why, and what that person might say. All this questioning may simply highlight that there are more than “biological” realities associated with the Abortion Debate. However, in the author’s follow up mediation with the college participants in Chapter 6, he tossed some of these findings into the discussion to get an understanding of how each side viewed the other. For instance:
“One of the main differences between the discussions was that Wheaton participants viewed pro-life beliefs as legitimate policy interests rooted in fetal rights and UChicago participants viewed the beliefs as rooted in religion, which some used as a way to dismiss pro-life beliefs as a violation of the separation between church and state. When participants were presented chapter 4’s question of who is most qualified to determine when a human’s life begins, pro-choice participants believed that most pro-life Americans would select religious leaders and they were surprised to learn that the majority selected biologists.” (pp. 273-74 and footnotes).
So his point that misunderstandings of what each side thinks, and what each side thinks about the other, might be clouding the debate enough to detract from progress, seems valid to me. This is where mere polls don’t quite capture what’s going on (IMO).