...and the answer is the the pro-life movement has to stop trying to resolve this issue politically. In other words, no longer pursue legislation to stop a woman's right to have the abortion. Even if they get the legislation that they want, there would only be resentment from a large portion of society and you would still have huge amounts of illegal abortions; probably much less safe for the mother. That is not going to satisfy anyone. The goal of the pro-life movement should be to have a country where women have the RIGHT to an abortion, but no one chooses to have the abortion. And the pro-choice movement should be happy with that as well. The compromise from the pro-choice side is that they are going to have to welcome the pro-life side to distribute medical information; things like letting everyone know that a baby's heart starts beating at 22 days after conception, etc. Women should have as much information as they can before making a decision. I'm against distributing pictures of aborted fetuses, etc. I don't think that is productive. Pro-life needs to stop the rhetoric of stating that abortion is 'evil' etc. The basic message should be: 'based on a medical basis, we think a pre-born baby should be considered a human life worth protecting, and here is our evidence'. Then we can stop vilifying the other side and realize both are trying to do what is 'good' from their own perspective. I think this is the best we can hope for
Good points, olias, except that "pro-life" is largely rooted in religion, which has historically been big on vilifying and all-or-nothing thinking.
<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EL1BOWC3No0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Pretty simple really.
<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/I53ATusQudk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
That's the problem merely restated. Medical evidence cannot tell us when "human being" starts, I don't believe the argument has ever revolved simply around whether it's alive or not.
why not have each town decide for itself? what's the reason that a state somehow knows better than the union?
states generally lose power because they trample on the rights of the less powerful individual. states do not have the right to make unconstitutional laws forcing people to the back of the bus. if there is a constitutional right for a woman to choose what she does with her body a state does not have the right to pass laws prohibiting it.
Sure. You could have towns decide but state law supersedes municipal law. So at the end of the day, it will always come back to the states.
i think everyone could agree that after viability there should be no abortion. this could have been law years ago if it were not for religious people sticking their nose in other peoples business.
What about Federal laws ignoring the Constitution to trample on states rights? We can go round and round with this.