Abortion V.5

[Chris]

On and off, the abortion debate in its first four versions has been a source of fruitful discussion, tension, and many other emotions on these boards. In this new version, we're going to move away from case studies and instead focus on areas where people can find a common ground and come to a greater understanding of where other posters are coming from.

To that effect, here are some starter questions:

1. What term would you use to describe your abortion stance, and why?

2. If you are pro-life, what is the single biggest thing you wished pro-choice people would understand about your position?

3. If you are pro-choice, what is the single biggest thing that you wished pro-life people would understand about your position?

4. What are some ways in which both sides can work together to reduce the number of abortions? What compromises would have to be made to make this happen?

5. Do you think that it's realistic that both sides will be able to work together to reduce the number of abortions? Why or why not?

6. (Non-US posters): Any additional thoughts regarding the differences in climate and laws between your country and the United States?

Final notes: We understand that some members in their own philosophical & spiritual views, may define abortion as 'murder'. We're not ignorant of those sentiments or feelings, however it is not legally defined as murder. In order to have this debate, a measure of common ground must be laid out and as such we're asking that members debate the issue of abortion from a purely legal, medical & welfare perspective. We also ask that people respect the terms that other posters use to describe themselves, such as "pro-choice" and "pro-life", and use those terms whenever possible.

The new DoIMC rules are in effect. Post accordingly .

[Siriusandme]

1. What term would you use to describe your abortion stance, and why?
Neutral (I'm Switserland ) I find it hard to take a stance when it comes to abortion since I don't really know what kind of decision I would make if I had to. It's easy to say you would never have an abortion when you've never had to make the choice... If I had to make a choice then it would be "pro-choice"

2. If you are pro-life, what is the single biggest thing you wished pro-choice people would understand about your position?
/

3. If you are pro-choice, what is the single biggest thing that you wished pro-life people would understand about your position?
I understand that there are people who wouldn't choose abortion and I respect that opinion. However... when you're against pro-choice (against abortion) you take away every one elses choice as well. The good thing about choice is that if you're against abortion and have it made illegal, you take away some one elses choice. While pro-choice leaves every one with a choice. Hope that makes sense....

4. What are some ways in which both sides can work together to reduce the number of abortions? What compromises would have to be made to make this happen?
Better education about sex. Wich would also be good in preventing std's.... Wich means.... taadaa.... sex-ed. I've heard that's a bit of a problem in the US. Not so mich here...

5. Do you think that it's realistic that both sides will be able to work together to reduce the number of abortions? Why or why not?
Yes, why not. Isn't that what everyone wants??? Less abortions???

6. (Non-US posters): Any additional thoughts regarding the differences in climate and laws between your country and the United States?
About 6 or 7 yrs ago I saw a protest in front of a local abortionclinic... The protest was very.. uhm.. small. Actually it was just one person. With a sign. Quite sad really... Anyway, I always thought here (in Holland) abortion was only legal until the third month. But apparently I was wrong. The law says that an abortion of a child that would be able to survive outside the womb is equal to killing a child that's already born. But as far as I know abortionclinics only perform up untill the 24th week. The law also states you have to talk to a psychologist and there is a waiting period of 6 days. To prevent rash decisions.
I suppose there are people here who don't really agree with our abortion laws but I've never heard of them. It's so much a part of our culture it's almost non-negotiable. And we have one of the smallest numbers of abortion in the world...

[leah49]

1. What term would you use to describe your abortion stance, and why?
Pro-Life. Life begins at conception. Why do we get to make the decision that an unborn child has to die?

2. If you are pro-life, what is the single biggest thing you wished pro-choice people would understand about your position?
There is a reason for everything in this world. There is a reason the baby was concieved. That baby deserves a chance at life, just like you got one.

4. What are some ways in which both sides can work together to reduce the number of abortions? What compromises would have to be made to make this happen?
We need to stop making sex so cool and a thing everyone has to do. We need to stop acting like virgin is a dirty word and uncool. We need to stress protected sex as well.

5. Do you think that it's realistic that both sides will be able to work together to reduce the number of abortions? Why or why not?
No. No one wants to compromise. I don't want abortions to be legal and the pro-choice does not want them to be illegal. Any compromise can make one side feel like they've lost. I just wish we could at least listen to each other with open minds.

ETA: I hope we can work together to reduce the number of abortions. I want the number to go down.

[Rell]

1. What term would you use to describe your abortion stance, and why?
I'd say that I'm pro-life. However, I do believe that there are certain circumstances where an abortion would be acceptable, such as when an abortion would save the mothers life, or if the mother was a victim in the situation. I do not believe in aborting babies who have disabilities.

2. If you are pro-life, what is the single biggest thing you wished pro-choice people would understand about your position?
I would like people to understand that pro-lifers really do believe that the fetus is a living person. It's not that I don't think that the mother shouldn't have rights over her body, but I believe that there's another living person involved who is a separate body.

4. What are some ways in which both sides can work together to reduce the number of abortions? What compromises would have to be made to make this happen?
Better education to teach teenagers how to prevent pregnancy, Assistance to poorer people (and to people in poorer countries) in obtaining birth control and education, better monetary and emotional support for parents who decide to keep their baby.

5. Do you think that it's realistic that both sides will be able to work together to reduce the number of abortions? Why or why not? I think that both sides need to realize that they have some common goals. I don't know very many people who like abortions even if they are pro-choice. If people realize that most of us have the goal of reducing abortions, then we can work towards that goal. My ultimate goal would be to stop abortions altogether except under the extreme circumstances that I described above. However, reducing abortions is a step in that direction.

[Yoana]

1. What term would you use to describe your abortion stance, and why?

Pro-choice, because this is what I define as the most important matter in this debate - choice. As much as I hate the idea of abortion, and even though I agree the foetus is a (potential) human life, I can't agree with taking the choice away from women. However negative the consequences of having abortion legal may be, I feel they cannot exceed the damage done to women and to society by denying women that choice.

3. If you are pro-choice, what is the single biggest thing that you wished pro-life people would understand about your position?

That there's another life involved, too - that of the mother. Also, that pro-choice does NOT equal pro-abortion. Also, that we can't possibly judge women without knowing their situation and thus can't ever guarantee that giving birth is in all cases the better option for all women. In general, that we should judge less and try to understand more.

4. What are some ways in which both sides can work together to reduce the number of abortions? What compromises would have to be made to make this happen?

Preventive measures - reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. I think we can all agree this is better than both abortion and an unplanned/unwanted child. I think comprehensive sex education and demythologising sex (bring it into the realm of free public discourse) are in my opinion crucial steps towards achiving some results in this sphere.

5. Do you think that it's realistic that both sides will be able to work together to reduce the number of abortions? Why or why not?

I'm not overly optimistic. Unfortunately, as in almost all other issues closely connected to personal beliefs and value system, most people on both sides care more about their ideology and the rigid framework of their belief system than for the actual problem at hand and the possible solutions. And that isn't productive.

6. (Non-US posters): Any additional thoughts regarding the differences in climate and laws between your country and the United States?

Abortion is a non-issue here. It's legal during the first trimester on request and hardly anyone questions it. It's even free of charge for women under 16 and over 40 (I think).

[Melaszka]

1. What term would you use to describe your abortion stance, and why?

I don't like the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice", because I'm not anti-life and I think most people who are "pro-life" aren't anti-choice in any general sense, but for want of a clearer descriptor, I am vehemently pro-choice.

2. If you are pro-life, what is the single biggest thing you wished pro-choice people would understand about your position?

N/A

3. If you are pro-choice, what is the single biggest thing that you wished pro-life people would understand about your position?

That I believe the way I do, not because I don't respect life, but because I want as many people involved in the situation as possible to have the best life they can. And that different people have different circumstances, aspirations and beliefs - what's the right solution for one person is not necessarily the right thing for everyone else.

4. What are some ways in which both sides can work together to reduce the number of abortions?

Better sex education

Increasing men's responsibility for contraception and for supporting any children they have, financially, practically and emotionally (I'm not at all sure how this could be achieved, though)

More financial, practical and emotional support for mothers

In-depth, impartial counselling for women contemplating an abortion - in my country, technically, you are supposed to receive counselling before finalising your choice to have an abortion, but in practice, I believe it's become a tokenistic formality, if you're over 20, which I think is a disgrace.

In particular, women whose sole or main reason for seeking an abortion is because they believe their partner or parents would be angry and/or unsupportive if they found out they were pregnant should be given a lot of guidance to help them make the choice that is right for them, not their significant others, and strongly encouraged to consult the partner/parents, in case they have misjudged their reaction (although I don't think consulting partner/parents should be mandatory, as I believe that in a minority of cases, it may not be in the woman's best interests and at the end of the day, she is probably the best judge of this)

I'm not sure if this would ever be possible or practical, but developing technology which would allow the removal of a living foetus or embryo, so that it could be transplanted into an artificial womb or the womb of a childless woman who wants a baby - in that way, we could have our cake and eat it. Women who didn't want to continue with a pregnancy could terminate it without killing the foetus/embryo.

What compromises would have to be made to make this happen?

See answer to 5.

5. Do you think that it's realistic that both sides will be able to work together to reduce the number of abortions? Why or why not?

I think it's realistic that some people on both sides could work together for this purpose.

However, there are some people on both sides whose beliefs are too incompatible. For instance, people who for religious or other ethical reasons are opposed to contraception or sex education, or who because of their political ideals don't believe in spending public money on single mothers aren't going to agree with some of these strategies.

Also, some pro-choice people might think that extra counselling and/or encouragemenmt to consult partner/family is intrusive and unnecessary.

6. (Non-US posters): Any additional thoughts regarding the differences in climate and laws between your country and the United States?

I think the climate in the UK is far more pro-choice than the US. I read recently that 83% of people in the UK support a woman's right to choose
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7057026.stm.

And we've never had protests outside clinics/violence directed at clinic personnel, as far as I'm aware.

[The_Madwoman]

1. What term would you use to describe your abortion stance, and why?

I consider myself a pro-choice, though I think abortion should only be legal in rape cases or when the mother's life is in danger. I do think that women must have the right to choose whether to endure pregnancy or not, but then there would be lots of promiscuous women that would not use any contraceptive methods and then more people would get STDs.

3. If you are pro-choice, what is the single biggest thing that you wished pro-life people would understand about your position?

Above everything: don't come up with that argument of "If she got pregnant, that's because it was meant to be". I understand that you have the right to believe in destiny, but it musn't be turned into a rule to everyone - including those who don't believe. That's almost like creating a religion-based law.


I'm gonna answer the other 3 questions later. I've spent too much time in the pc today and got quite tired of typing. :P

[Tenshi]

There was no chance to answer it the last time...

Originally Posted by Lord Godric

And if a woman desperately needs one to save her own life, but the government has banned it - I just don't see how supporting that is considered "pro-life."

In Germany abortions are generally illegal, except for rare circumstances. One of those are when the life of the mother is in danger. Abortion can be carried out, at any time during pregnancy I think. I'm sure of of the other cases is rape, but there it can be only carried out till the 11th week. Third case is I think, when the mental health of the mother is in danger, but the 11th week rule still applies. I think that's what wiki said.

This is how I'd prefer it. Keeping it illegal, but making exceptions for women who need it.

[lupislune]

1. What term would you use to describe your abortion stance, and why?

I consider myself to be pro-life, although I do believe abortions are acceptable in cases where the mother's life is in danger or the mother has been the victim of a sex crime. I don't under any circumstances believe in abortions carried out after the first trimester. I don't believe life begins at conception. I think life begins when the fetus becomes self aware, or a time when it is no longer just a collection of dividing cells. When that happens, I'm not exactly positive, but I think there is a point in the process where the cells have differentiated enough where the brain has developed to be capable of self-awareness. I am of the opinion this happens sometime during the second trimester however.

2. If you are pro-life, what is the single biggest thing you wished pro-choice people would understand about your position?

I know that many people who are pro-choice believe it is their right as individuals to have abortions performed, but I think the child or potential child has rights as well, even though it is technically inside another individual.

4. What are some ways in which both sides can work together to reduce the number of abortions? What compromises would have to be made to make this happen?

I think education and encouragement of safe sex practices help, but I don't think that it is something that will ever ameliorate itself all together. I think banning the process all together, while that would support my opinion would only encourage those to have them done by non legal means. I think regulation of abortion is the best route to go, so there is always an "option" to allow those who believe in it a way to have it performed legally and safely.

5. Do you think that it's realistic that both sides will be able to work together to reduce the number of abortions? Why or why not?

Abortion is a heated issue. It always has been, and I think that it will always be one, however, I think if we look past our closely held beliefs, acknowledge that there are other opinions than our own, and those opinions aren't wrong, just different, we can come to a compromise.

[Lord Godric]

1. What term would you use to describe your abortion stance, and why?
I am pro-choice. And like others have said the reasoning behind that is in the name itself. I believe every woman should have the choice if she wants to carry the child to birth and have a child. For a lot of women giving birth and raising a child is not a realistic scenario or in the best interest for anyone, including the child. I am opposed, however, to excessive use of abortion and do not think it should be abused.

3. If you are pro-choice, what is the single biggest thing that you wished pro-life people would understand about your position?
That everyone should have a choice in the matter, just like everyone is given the freedom of speech, and the choice of religion. Speaking of religion, I also feel that abortion is not something to be governed by the laws of God as those laws do not apply to many people. And although religious reasoning may be fine for an individual, they can not be applied to the general population.

4. What are some ways in which both sides can work together to reduce the number of abortions? What compromises would have to be made to make this happen?
I've said it before and I'll say it again - abstinence only sex ed is obviously not working, and schools should actively be working to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and the number of young children having sex, and kids should be taught this from the beginning. Students need to learn how to use means of birth control in a proper manner, and also need to learn how to use other contraceptives for a large diversity of reasons.

5. Do you think that it's realistic that both sides will be able to work together to reduce the number of abortions? Why or why not?
No. Plainly because both sides are too strong-minded. People from different sides can not agree on what is fact and what is fiction. Pro-lifers seem to be solely working to the goal of making abortions illegal, while pro-choicers do not seem to be concentrating on reduce the number of abortions, just fighting to ensure abortions stay legal in general.

[DeliciousMoon]

Originally Posted by lupislune

I consider myself to be pro-life, although I do believe abortions are acceptable in cases where the mother's life is in danger or the mother has been the victim of a sex crime.

This is something I never quite understood about the pro-life stance (what I bolded). Why is a child who was not a product of rape more worthy of a life than one who is a product of rape (or a product of incest)? It's not the child's fault how it's concieved.

I of course do not think that any woman should be denied the right to her body, and I hope the above question isn't inappropriate or anything, but this is just something I'm curious about.

[DancingMaenid]

1. What term would you use to describe your abortion stance, and why?

Pro-choice. I don't think that I can judge whether or not abortion is justified morally. While I think that we should be concerned about the potential harm caused by abortion, I don't think there's justification for the government to ban it. I think it's a choice that women must make for themselves, and I think that they should be free to do so. It's not for me to either encourage nor discourage abortion--it's a very personal issue.

3. If you are pro-choice, what is the single biggest thing that you wished pro-life people would understand about your position?

The biggest thing would be that being pro-choice does not mean that a person necessarily feels that abortion is without consequence or is not a big deal. Abortion is a big deal, and it's not a decision I would easily make for myself. I would not suggest being pro-choice is a simple matter, but I don't think that being pro-life is a simple matter, either. Real life doesn't always fit neatly with ideologies, and most women simply make the decision that they feel they must make.

4. What are some ways in which both sides can work together to reduce the number of abortions? What compromises would have to be made to make this happen?

The most important thing is recognizing that education is important. I don't understand how some people claim to be pro-life, yet support things like abstinence only education which keeps young people from learning how to keep safe and prevent pregnancies from occurring in the first place.

I think the important thing to realize, though, is that both sides of the debate ultimately want people to make smart, responsible decisions. I don't think there's a whole lot of conflict in that area, actually.

5. Do you think that it's realistic that both sides will be able to work together to reduce the number of abortions? Why or why not?

I think both sides often get too caught up over ideologies to actually concern themselves with the well-being of the women who are affected by this issue. That goes both ways.

Originally Posted by Tenshi

In Germany abortions are generally illegal, except for rare circumstances. One of those are when the life of the mother is in danger. Abortion can be carried out, at any time during pregnancy I think. I'm sure of of the other cases is rape, but there it can be only carried out till the 11th week. Third case is I think, when the mental health of the mother is in danger, but the 11th week rule still applies. I think that's what wiki said.

This is how I'd prefer it. Keeping it illegal, but making exceptions for women who need it.

The problem I have with this (aside from my general disagreement with banning abortion), is: how do you determine who needs it?

Obviously, you have some cases where there's a clear, strong medical risk--either the woman needs to have an abortion in order to avoid serious health complications/death (such as in an ectopic pregnancy) or they suffer from a health problem where a pregnancy would be risky or would result in the deterioration of her health.

But then you have some less clear situations. For instance, women on medication for mental illnesses often need to go off those medications in order to have a healthy pregnancy. Now, this isn't necessarily a death sentence, and it's often possible for women to safely have babies if they work with their doctors and are careful. But what if going off the medication is going to put a woman at strong risk of becoming suicidal? Or what if going of the meds could set her back into a severe relapse? In a case like this, if she wanted to abort out of concerns for her mental well-being, would that be justified?

Also, I see valuing a person's life as having to do with more than protecting their physical health. If a woman is in psychological distress because of a pregnancy, then I don't necessarily view that as any less serious than if she's physically ill from it.

[wickedwickedboy]

1. What term would you use to describe your abortion stance, and why?

Freedom of choice for all. For couples, I feel it should be a dual choice made between them were possible.

2. If you are pro-life, what is the single biggest thing you wished pro-choice people would understand about your position?

I'm not.

3. If you are pro-choice, what is the single biggest thing that you wished pro-life people would understand about your position?

I suppose the importance of choice. This issue arises in many and varied situations and circumstances and having a flat rule to govern it is not a workable solution to me. Freedom of choice with relevant legal restrictions is the way to go, imo. I do appreciate the value of all life myself, but I do feel that this is a personal circumstances decision and I don't feel imposing my values on others, even in similar situations, is a workable idea as we are all different.

4. What are some ways in which both sides can work together to reduce the number of abortions? What compromises would have to be made to make this happen?

I don't really think the two sides should work together toward that goal. I think it more important to recognize that individuals on both sides are going to place their values on their personal situation, and take a myriad of other factors into account when making the decision. I don't think there is a blanket answer for all of these individual people (including couples). I believe in the exchange of ideas though, so I think discussions are great and people can air their thoughts. But that should be the extent of any goal relevant to this issue.

5. Do you think that it's realistic that both sides will be able to work together to reduce the number of abortions? Why or why not?

Again, I don't think this is a goal that should be pursued. I don't understand what the purpose of being able to cite a smaller number of abortions taking place would be. I feel like the only point of that is to reach some other generalization. For example, if we bring down the number of abortions, somehow that will translate to more people valuing life or some other societal generalization. But to me, there is no generalization to be made with this goal in mind. If some legal or social way was found to reduce the number of abortions, I have a feeling the number of illegal or obscured abortions would rise, resulting in an almost equal number of them being performed - one way or another.

To me, the number is not important - what is important is addressing each individual situation - and it must be addressed by those parties concerned. Informing everyone about the overall scope of the issue - by exchange of ideas - is great. Beyond that, there should be no goal. Of course I am open to hearing what possible good would come of being able to cite a reduced number of abortions overall - especially where the illegal or obscured ones are not counted.

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy

If some legal or social way was found to reduce the number of abortions, I have a feeling the number of illegal or obscured abortions would rise, resulting in an almost equal number of them being performed - one way or another.

That is why the goal must be to make abortion unnecessary. If there are no unwanted pregnancies then there will be abortions only when medically necessary. Of course this is only a nominal goal, because even with effective education and prevention there will be accidents and mistakes. But approaching the matter this way would not seemingly allow for illicit abortions to take place, because there will be no demand.

[Yoana]

Originally Posted by Tenshi

This is how I'd prefer it. Keeping it illegal, but making exceptions for women who need it.

This is where the big problem with the middle ground people (in-between pro-choice and pro-life, where I believe most of us are) is though - how do we define when a woman really needs an abortion? There are too many opinions and viewpoints on this, almost all of them valid, I have found. Another problem is, if someone is partially pro-choice, like me, where do we draw the line? I personally draw it at the first trimester, but that is more out of a compromise than any substantial reason or any knowledge of foetal development. So, unfortunately, it isn't that simple.

[Siriusandme]

Originally Posted by Yoana

This is where the big problem with the middle ground people (in-between pro-choice and pro-life, where I believe most of us are) is though - how do we define when a woman really needs an abortion? There are too many opinions and viewpoints on this, almost all of them valid, I have found. Another problem is, if someone is partially pro-choice, like me, where do we draw the line? I personally draw it at the first trimester, but that is more out of a compromise than any substantial reason or any knowledge of foetal development. So, unfortunately, it isn't that simple.

The problem isn't so much where you draw the line, but why should one person draw the line for someone else??? Who am I to decide wether someone I've never met, has the right to have an abortion, and if their reasons are justified. Especially if I've never been in that position before.

That's what I like about pro-choice and dislike about pro-live. Pro-choice let's both groups make a choice, but pro-live takes away the choice for one of those groups. And at what expense.....

[Trixa]

Originally Posted by Yoana

I personally draw it at the first trimester, but that is more out of a compromise than any substantial reason or any knowledge of foetal development. So, unfortunately, it isn't that simple.

The foetus is considered a person after about two or three months of pregnancy. This is why abortion is only legal only until the foetus has grown enough for it to be considered a being which can think, feel and thus suffer.

Originally Posted by Siriusandme

That's what I like about pro-choice and dislike about pro-live. Pro-choice let's both groups make a choice, but pro-live takes away the choice for one of those groups. And at what expense.....

I don't think it takes away the choice, it forces people to take responsibility for their own actions which is a good thing, IMO. If a woman doesn't want children she shouldn't engage in intercourse without taking the proper precausions. I'm part pro life and part pro choice but the only reason I'm pro choice is because no contraceptive is 100% infallible. You can still get pregnant even though you've been responsible and you shouldn't then be forced to carry out a pregnancy. There's also the possibility of rape in which of course you should have the right to get an abortion.

[Siriusandme]

Originally Posted by Trixa

I don't think it takes away the choice, it forces people to take responsibility for their own actions which is a good thing, IMO. If a woman doesn't want children she shouldn't engage in intercourse without taking the proper precausions. I'm part pro life and part pro choice but the only reason I'm pro choice is because no contraceptive is 100% infallible. You can still get pregnant even though you've been responsible and you shouldn't then be forced to carry out a pregnancy. There's also the possibility of rape in which of course you should have the right to get an abortion.

Ofcourse making abortion illegal (wich is what pro-life wants) takes away the choice to have an abortion. There is no choice. The perfect situation would be that no one has sex with anyone they don't have a lasting relationship with and with birthcontrol of whatever sort. But I'm afraid perfect situations don't exist and therefor we must deal with the situation at hand. Most people deal with their current situation as best as they can. No one has an abortion for fun. And one could also say that for some people having an abortion is taking responsibility. Some people just can't take care of a baby and adoption isn't always an option.

[flimseycauldron]

Originally Posted by chparadise

What term would you use to describe your abortion stance, and why?

I used to be pro-choice. I often have felt the "Who am I to tell other people what to do?" mantra run through my head. Over the last few years and the last year in particular, I've come to a solid pro-life stance. There is only one exception, for me, and that is the life (not lasting health effects) of the mother. Two lost lives are not better than one. I've come to this position because I feel that any other decision to abort is based in some form on greed/selfishness. I don't buy "better for the baby" arguements. I don't buy "financial, familial, or or educational" reasons. I don't buy "physical body changes". Even in the most heinous of circumstances where I feel great sympathy for the woman/mother such as instances of rape, I don't feel that her anguish should be enough to end a person's life. In essence I feel that the right to life is inalienable.

Originally Posted by chparadise

2. If you are pro-life, what is the single biggest thing you wished pro-choice people would understand about your position?

As I said above that life the right to life is inalienable. Also that people who are pro-life are not trying to restrict choice. You have the choice to be sexually active. You have the choice over which and how many contraceptives you use. You have a choice as to whether or not you raise your child or give it up for adoption. The baby never had any choice whatsoever. I feel that is so important.

Originally Posted by chparadise

4. What are some ways in which both sides can work together to reduce the number of abortions? What compromises would have to be made to make this happen?

Honestly I think that the world community has become overly sexualized after years of being sexually repressed. I feel like there is alot of over compensation going on. It's not just about sex ed. It's about how pregnancy is viewed through the lens of personal freedom, and less through the eyes of a family unit. I feel as the family unit falls apart the more that sex becomes less valued as an act of love and more about the physical act of pleasure.

Originally Posted by chparadise

5. Do you think that it's realistic that both sides will be able to work together to reduce the number of abortions? Why or why not?

As I said above I think we really need a shift in menatility about sex and about the family unit. There needs to be more emphasis, imho, that life begins at conception and not that it's just a bunch of cells. Until there is such a societal shift I think we will only be able to reduce abortions so much until we reach a virtual stalemate.

Originally Posted by Melaszka

Increasing men's responsibility for contraception and for supporting any children they have, financially, practically and emotionally (I'm not at all sure how this could be achieved, though)

Again, it used to be that men took care of their children. They owned up to their responsibility. Society has shifted away from that. And I believe that this choice about abortions offers them an easy way out. I think also the attitude of some women who don't want the father's in the lives of their children (for whatever reason) do them a disservice. When you have women absolving them of their responsibility it tends to breed even more nonchalance.

Originally Posted by Melaszka

More financial, practical and emotional support for mothers

I've always felt Europe is much better in this area of healthcare. At least in the beginning. Hospitals in most European countries let new mothers stay for an average of four days. Or alternately two or more days longer than the average stay for U.S. mothers. To me this signals that Europe is way ahead in providing support than the U.S. although of course much more can be done. This is another reason why healthcare reform is so important.

Originally Posted by Lord Godric

That everyone should have a choice in the matter, just like everyone is given the freedom of speech, and the choice of religion. Speaking of religion, I also feel that abortion is not something to be governed by the laws of God as those laws do not apply to many people. And although religious reasoning may be fine for an individual, they can not be applied to the general population.

Except for the baby? The baby is a life. I am agnostic so my reason for being pro-life are not based on any sort of religious belief. I believe that to be a misconception that only religious people have the right to be pro-life or have any voice in the debate. It's easy to dismiss religion--not so easy to dismiss morality.

Originally Posted by Siriusandme

That's what I like about pro-choice and dislike about pro-live. Pro-choice let's both groups make a choice, but pro-live takes away the choice for one of those groups. And at what expense.....

The baby's expense, I would think...

[Siriusandme]

Originally Posted by flimseycauldron

The baby's expense, I would think...

Or the mothers'....