This policy set has the potential to marginalize the opportunists and separate the angry radicals from pro-lifers of good will. It may not put the issue to rest, but it can go a long way toward taking the poison out of the well, in addition to helping women.

What ever happened to doing it just until you needed glasses? Worked for my generation.......

I wonder who gave men the power to say what a woman can do with her body?

Yeah, this is a sellout of the far right for sure. What good is the Right To Life if we can't imprison people for handing out birth control information, and execute doctors who perform abortions? Kill 'em all — those #@*!!%! — or we won't have a right to life.

Yours crankily,

When they start agreeing to condom distribution to teenagers as a way to reduce the incidence of abortion (something that would work extremely well) we'll really have something.

"When they start agreeing to condom distribution to teenagers...we'll really have something."

I dunno, I came from the school of thought that said if you weren't ready to stand in line at the druggist's with that big box of condoms in hand, blaring like a beacon to all those around you, waiting impatiently behind the old lady paying for her pills with change as the store got hotter and hotter and the lights started to literally sear a hole in your head, then you probably weren't ready to have sex...

;)

I wonder who gave men the power to say what a woman can do with her body?

There is no such thing as a "good-faith" "pro-lifer" (how I hate that Orwellian bullshit phrase "pro-life"- please STOP USING THE OTHER SIDE'S FRAMES, Steve.) And just to nail that point home, good luck finding any significant number of them who are not ALSO anti-contraception.

You don't have to have a lot of social programs to cut down on abortions. -- Scheidler, founder of the Pro-Life Action League

But there's empirical evidence that these programs do in fact cut down the number of abortions, as well as ameliorating the consequences of unintended pregnancies.

Scheidler's statement then suggests that cutting down the number of abortions is not exactly the agenda of the anti-choice brigades.

I wonder if the mainstream Democrats are willing to meet Republicans part way.

I have never understood why it is almost impossible for my daughter to take an asprin in school, with or without my permission, yet it is a terrible thing to require parental notification with the right to go before a judge and explain why the girl doesn't want the parent involved.

People on this blog think this is a terrible idea. How can those same people work with Republicans who really honestly feel that abortion is murder?

"The far-right isn't happy....said Joe Scheidler, founder of the Pro-Life Action League. "We don't think it's really genuine. You don't have to have a lot of social programs to cut down on abortions."

He went on to say: "...that is much more genuine to just stop people from having sex, and much more realistic too!"

Laughter in the room quickly died down when those present realized that he was serious.

On an entirely political level, any bi-partisan compromise reached on this issue is automatically disastrous for the anti-choice wingnuts, and not only because it would steal their thunder. A compromise would also likely reduce their access to and influence on GOP lawmakers who support it, because a more centrist position would make them less dependent on the bible-thumper vote. I think this is a key aspect of an imminent GOP schism between the Palinites and those who want to try and recover old-style economic conservatism.

People on this blog think this is a terrible idea.

Because it IS a terrible idea. Not every girl lives in a nice middle-class family with good, non-abusive parents. Get a goddamn clue.

How can those same people work with Republicans who really honestly feel that abortion is murder?

Simple- you CAN'T compromise with demented ideologues and shouldn't try. What you SHOULD do is reduce abortions the right, and also the only effective, way- by providing women with better access to contraception and better education in its use.

I have never understood why it is almost impossible for my daughter to take an asprin in school, with or without my permission, yet it is a terrible thing to require parental notification with the right to go before a judge and explain why the girl doesn't want the parent involved.

Because many if not most parents don't believe that it's a terrible sin to prevent a headache and so she should just carry the headache to term?

I wonder if the mainstream Democrats are willing to meet Republicans part way.

Uh, why? We're in the mainstream. The Republicans are way out of the mainstream out there on the rightward fringe. To meet them partway, we'd therefore have to move right of center, which is their territory. So I wonder instead if Republicans are willing to meet part way by moving back to the mainstream....

I'll speculate that those Republicans voted for Obama. The "true" members of the Republican party are the war criminals, human rights abusers, racists and bigots. The "classic" conservative and small government Republicans have mostly left the party and are voting DNC Democratic at this point.

I think that the formal parties will begin to become more transparent about this migration.

Who it leaves out is the progressive faction of the Democratic party, which I predict will separate and form a legitimate major opposition party with Dean as its founding father and with a much more robust representation by and for women a la Elizabeth Edwards and multi-cultured citizenry, amd with a platform based on Constitutional restoration, civil and human rights and government aimed at promoting the common good.

Meanwhile, I predict that the GOP will die off as a marginalized fringe group of de facto domestic terrorists. I'm blogging about this today and hope to have the post up shortly.

How can those same people work with Republicans who really honestly feel that abortion is murder?

If they really honestly feel that abortion is murder, do they really honestly want a young woman who gets an abortion to be tried for first-degree murder and imprisoned for life or executed?

While Bill Clinton rightly criticized for triangulating his positions, one place where he got things 100% correct was on abortion. I think that he stated the basic position of most Americans when he said that abortion needed to be 'safe, legal, and rare.'

Make sure that people know about and have access to birth control; that reduces unplanned pregnancies. But, for those times when birth control either does not work or isn't an option, or where the mother's life is at risk, make sure that abortion is both safe + legal.

If the Obama administration cleaves to this line of thinking, the country will be far better off.

-Z

Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate. Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted .....

taboo-breaker.org/religion/sperm.htm

ps..
i'm with those who think the gop had better start moving to the center on this...however, the dems don't need to move at all..they should just stay put....

Sorry... that should have begun "While Bill Clinton was rightly criticized for triangulating his positions..." etc.

-Z

" yet it is a terrible thing to require parental notification with the right to go before a judge and explain why the girl doesn't want the parent involved."

Ugh! How would the school know in the first place? Sheesh. Maybe things have changed since my day but I know of no one in my high school back then who would have gone to a freaking teacher for advice. Especially if the teacher is bound by law to notify the parents. It's your friends you go to and they ain't telling you.

That you *need* to know about your daughter's sex life is just creepy.

I have never understood why it is almost impossible for my daughter to take an asprin in school, with or without my permission, yet it is a terrible thing to require parental notification with the right to go before a judge and explain why the girl doesn't want the parent involved.

Is it illegal for your daughter to buy aspirin at Walgreens?

If your daughter has appendicitis, do you think it ought to be illegal for her to have an appendectomy without your permission?

If your daughter got pregnant and wanted an abortion, would you try to talk her out of it? What sane person would force their daughter to carry a pregnancy to term? Anyone who would do that should have their children taken away from them anyway.

How can those same people work with Republicans who really honestly feel that abortion is murder?

If Republicans "really honestly feel that abortion is murder," how can they be worked with? What compromise are they willing to offer?

As for parental notification, what Steve LaBonne said. It might be a tad awkward for an underaged girl to ask her father for permission to abort when she's carrying his child.

Thanks for the concern trolling, but as Stefan pointed out, extremist anti-choice views are in the minority. They are the ones who should compromise.

I think it's a grand idea that Republicans are finally jumping the fence and figuring out that the easiest way to prevent abortions is to prevent the pregnancy in the first place. DUH!

Hopefully, the cooler heads will push out the extremists on the religious right who won't even get on the birth control bus. Continuing with the anti-sex philosophy of the far right is a guaranteed way for the GOP to spend a lot more time out of national power.

Anyone who says they want to end abortion and isn't willing to pass out birth control on street corners has another agenda beyond ending abortion.....

Don't count on the Roman Catholics to come along.

The Pope is against birth control, too. He won't be allowing condoms to be handed out in R.C. schools, by God.

Every sperm is sacred.

Shorter Joe Scheidler: Just bring back chastity belts.

Of course those won't prevent young girls from giving b.j.s, but as we all remember from Bill
Clinton, those aren't really "sex" at all.

The most "burdensome abortion regulation" is that the last time I looked (and that was early in the Bush years) abortion was only available in 13% of counties in the US.

It already HAS been driven to the margins. Or more literally, women have been driven to the cities ... by boyfriends and moms and girlfriends who don't seem to want them to be killed or injured in botched jobs. Go figure. It's not like the demand side has changed one whit.

There are thoughtful, goodhearted people on both sides of this issue (though there aren't many thoughtful, goodhearted pro-choicers around here at the moment).

80% of self-described pro-lifers favor access to contraception. These tend not to be the activists, but they can be reached and appealed to.

I guess I really hit a nerve here.

I said “I wonder if the mainstream Democrats are willing to meet Republicans part way.� I said PART WAY, not half way. Why would the Republicans bother to negotiate if the other side won’t give a little in the negotiations? Should the Democrats give an inch? I don’t know. Obviously, the mainstream Democratic position is far superior to the mainstream Republican position. But that doesn’t mean that giving a little in negotiations is a bad idea.

Parental notification “IS a terrible idea. . Not every girl lives in a nice middle-class family with good, non-abusive parents. Get a goddamn clue.� That is why I stated that the girl has “the right to go before a judge and explain why the girl doesn't want the parent involved.� I didn’t know that getting the legal system involved was a terrible way to deal with lousy parents.

I know some people in the Republican party who honestly think that abortion doctors should be jailed and executed. Obviously, you can’t compromise with them. However, they are a small part of the Republican Party.
“Is it illegal for your daughter to buy aspirin at Walgreens?� Obviously, my daughter can buy whatever she wants at Walgreens. The problem is that she is not allowed to take the drug in school. She would be suspended if she were caught taking the drug in school. We were told by the doctor that she should go to school and take an aspirin if she felt she needed to. We wrote a letter to the nurse asking if my daughter could go to the nurse’s office and take the aspirin there. We were specifically told that she would be suspended if she were caught taking an aspirin on school grounds or if she left school during the day without a parent to take the aspirin. It is a completely insane rule.
So, in closing, it appears that there is no reason for an abortion opponent to even think of compromising with the people on this blog. After all, I am very pro-choice and many of you think I am insane.

Hey Cal Gal,

You don't know many Roman Catholics do you? None of the ones I know give the Church even a shred of legitimacy when it comes to sexual issues. If you kicked out all the Roman Catholics who used birth control you wouldn't have a church in North America and Europe :)

Or as Jon Stewart said in stand up years ago "the Pope is the most beloved guy in the world...that NOBODY listens to" (paraphrase of course)

cheers!

Contraception is the real wedge issue. It separates those who really want to reduce unwanted and thus potentially aborted pregnancies from those who want to control women through their sexuality.

So see how they are on making birth control more widely available. If not, don't trust that group. Period.

That probably lets out the Catholic hierarchy, but not many of the flock.

Although the activists insist that they are not retreating from their belief that abortion is immoral and should be outlawed, they argue that a more practical alternative is to try to reduce abortions through other means.

I’m with ArtEclectic here: The correct answer is DUH! Simple fact is, if you are “pro-life� AND support abstinence-only sex education, then you are advocating a set of policies that will actually increase the number of abortions that take place in the real world. All you get out of your “pro-life� stance is an unearned sense of moral superiority.

If you want to talk about meeting these people halfway—well, that’s why the opposite of “pro-life� is not “pro-abortion� but pro-choice. Nobody is actually pro-abortion. So why waste time debating just precisely how satanic Planned Parenthood is when we could all be working together to find the most effective way to keep abortions to a minimum?

80% of self-described pro-lifers favor access to contraception. These tend not to be the activists, but they can be reached and appealed to.

Tell it to the "pro-lifers" I pass demonstrating outside Planned Parenthood every morning on my way to work, with signs saying "The Pill Kills."

The vast majority of those who call themselves "pro-life" are simply pro-punitive pregnancy - they want to see women have sex punished with pregnancy. Try reading some of their rhetoric and it becomes obvious very quickly.

Obviously, my daughter can buy whatever she wants at Walgreens. The problem is that she is not allowed to take the drug in school. ... It is a completely insane rule.

Okaaaay ... so how is your daughter's school's "completely insane rule" relevant to parental approval laws regarding abortion? Your daughter can't have an abortion at school either. You acknowledge that the school's rule is dumb. But somehow the fact that this rule is in place at her school entails that she shouldn't be able to have an abortion without your permission? HUH?

And Ruth has just nailed it.

The reason the religious wrong went apeshit after President-elect Obama's (god, I love writing that) comment about how he didn't want his daughters to be "punished" with a baby is because he touched the raw nerve. These Dark Ages sheeple WANT women and girls who have sex, consensual or not, to be punished for being such filthy temptress whores. That's why they're anti-choice. They don't believe that women should have the choice of when, whether, how, or with whom to have sex, the choice of contraception or the correct data to facilitate an informed choice, the choice to safely abort even if it's medically necessary, and they oppose support systems that would help that dirty whore raise the child once it's born when she should have just kept her legs shut.

Ain't nuthin' "pro-life" about that position. It's just hateful misogynists punishing women for having functioning vaginas.

If a new movement of common sense actually has taken root and that whole "support system" thing gets some traction...well, that might actually give some credence to the term "pro-life."

"It's a sellout, as far as we are concerned," said Joe Scheidler, founder of the Pro-Life Action League. "We don't think it's really genuine. You don't have to have a lot of social programs to cut down on abortions."

"Indeed," he continued, "such social programs are aimed at the poor, who deserve punishment rather than reward for (a) having sex and (b) being poor."

I know some people in the Republican party who honestly think that abortion doctors should be jailed and executed. Obviously, you can’t compromise with them. However, they are a small part of the Republican Party.

Look, if you honestly believe that abortion is murder, why wouldn't you advocate that all women (and not just doctors) who have an abortion be jailed or executed? After all, by this logic these women are engaging in first-degree murder with malice aforethought and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law just like any other murderer.

And yet somehow most of the anti-choice brigade which goes around squawking "it's murder!" never seems to advocate bringing these women to justice. It's almost as if, deep down, they don't really seem to think it's murder after all....At least if the vast majority of anti-choicers wanted to jail and execute these women I could admire their logical and ethical consistency, if nothing else. But the fact that they're not willing to work through the logic of their position exposes, once again, that they don't really believe what they claim to believe.

I (and the other side SHOULD) relish the sound of "thousands of abortions" instead of "millions".

I'd love to hear "hundreds" more still.

Pro-choice people, believe it or not, would love to prevent the "dozens" of nationwide abortions.

We'd love more still to be able to ask, "Abortion? What's that?"

I'll take my chances with this alliance. Those of us who try in good faith will produce fewer reluctant mothers.

How great would it be if Democrats slashed the number of abortions in half after 8 years of failure under the Christian pro-life champion?

Has anybody ever polled the so-called pro-lifers to determine what percentage support the death penalty?

Jess axin'.

I'm also curious about the familia Palin's view on teen sex education and access to contraception. Come to think of it, never mind.

Why is any "alliance" with the phony so-called "pro-lifers" required? Just do the right thing- the ONLY thing known to actually work for reducing the incidence of abortion: improve contraceptive access and education. No support from medieval misogynists is needed for THAT. And I can't think of anything worth doing that they could support OR for which their support is needed.

neil wilson,

All your post said was that we should meet them some way between our position and theirs. As many people have pointed out though, there really isn't any practical place in between. If you have some suggestions as to where we should compromise, that would be helpful. We'll happily consider them.

Obviously, you'll be mindful of the history of our compromising with the right at every turn and ending up with a government that imposes abstinence only education the moment they get power. The nerve you hit was the one that was exposed last time we compromised on this ...

I guess I really hit a nerve here.

No, you're just a garden-variety troll, spouting the same self-righteous idiocy we've heard a million tiomes before.

Why would the Republicans bother to negotiate if the other side won’t give a little in the negotiations?

See, here's the problem. The entire premise of your argument is that the anti-choice side is willing to negotiate in the first place. That assertion is not at all in evidence, so speculation on how the Democrats should compromise is moot.

Show us where the anti-choicers are willing to compromise and we'll talk.

I am very pro-choice

Oh, yeah, we can tell by your one-sided critique of the pro-choice issue and giving the anti-choicers a free pass.

and many of you think I am insane.

Not I. I just think you're very poor at advocating the position you claim to favor.

The Solution: Promote homosexuality. There is no way that people who engage in only homosexual unions will ever need an abortion. You can still teach abstinence till the cows come home, but at least if one cannot adhere to this practice, or lack thereof, they won't have to get an abortion for their "mistake".

Since when is abstinence even a practical solution? Look at the "intelligent, educated, sophisticated" politicians who get caught with prostitutes, having affairs, fathering children out of wedlock(I hate that term; if there is a lock, who holds the key?), etc. If they cannot resist having sex and they are presumably aware of the possible consequences of their behavior, how would anyone expect an emotionally immature child who is sexually mature, driven by hormonal drives and peer pressure to conform, to resist?

As has been said by much wiser people, we are in a time of transformation and transition from the old ways of competition and separation into a new paradigm of cooperation and collaboration. Ours is to hold the light of higher wisdom and model behavior that works for all of us.

I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation
peace,
st john

Frustrated by the failure to overturn Roe v. Wade, a growing number of antiabortion pastors, conservative academics and activists are setting aside efforts to outlaw abortion and instead are focusing on building social programs and developing other assistance for pregnant women to reduce the number of abortions.

Bullshit. The Xian taliban have never cared jack shit about babies, fetuses, abortions, contraceptives or anything except keep exclusive and total control over every single woman on the planet and every single thing every single one of them does.

Not even a total ban on abortion would stop them. Then they'll want a total ban on contraception, then the death penalty for all non-marital sex, then the death penalty for women who show their faces or step foot outdoors.

Think I'm exaggerating? The newest strategy for Afghanistan is to negotiate power sharing with - wait for it - the Taliban.

Insane women-haters: they're not just for killing any more!

“All your post said was that we should meet them some way between our position and theirs. As many people have pointed out though, there really isn't any practical place in between. If you have some suggestions as to where we should compromise, that would be helpful. We'll happily consider them.�

OK, how about this: even with the extremists on this post might not be so pro-choice. I am in the 9th month, my due date is tomorrow. Can I get an abortion today?

How can you claim there is no practical place between the extremes?

even with the extremists on this post might not be so pro-choice

What extremists?

I am in the 9th month, my due date is tomorrow. Can I get an abortion today?

That depends. Will delivering the baby endanger your life?

Now consider what the anti-choice position is -- what specific legislation they've advocated -- before you talk about "compromise." (Here's a hint: Health in danger? Tough luck...)

How can you claim there is no practical place between the extremes?

Easily, if the anti-choice side won't compromise at all. So the question on the floor is for you to indicate precisely where the anti-choice crowd is willing to compromise. We're still waiting...

"I am in the 9th month, my due date is tomorrow. Can I get an abortion today?

That depends. Will delivering the baby endanger your life?"

I am little confused.

If the delivery will endanger my life then you think is OK to abort a full term fetus?

If the delivery won't endanger my life then you think it NOT OK to abort a full term fetus?

Choice 1: you think there can be reasonable restrictions on a woman's right to an abortion.

Choice 2: ?????

"I am in the 9th month, my due date is tomorrow. Can I get an abortion today?

Depends. Will the delivery put you in danger, and what third-trimester procedure would be the safest? So long as it's not an intact dilation and extraction, you should be okay. But good luck finding a doctor who will perform ANY third trimester abortion, even on an anencephalic fetus with no hope of survival which delivery would kill the woman, after Stenberg vs. Carhart.

Really, Neil, there's this thing called a Wiki, and this magical thing called a Google, that helps you find technical information on a subject so you can actually sound reasonably well-informed while promoting anti-woman douchebaggery instead of merely looking like a dumbass.

Good point, Neil.

Almost nobody advocates allowing the choice to abort the day before delivery, unless the mother's life is in danger.

And very few pro-choice people oppose the formulation "safe, legal and rare". EVERYONE, it seems, would like to reduce abortions.

It's a pro-life world, really. We just differ on the means.

I am in the 9th month, my due date is tomorrow. Can I get an abortion today?

Go right ahead.

I am little confused.

I'll say -- and it's looking increasingly like it's out of bad faith rather than ignorance.

If the delivery will endanger my life then you think is OK to abort a full term fetus?

Yes. Sadly, sometimes families and their doctors are faced with that choice.

Of course, again, the anti-choice crowd advocates anti-abortion legislation in which there are no exceptions for the life or health of the mother.

If the delivery won't endanger my life then you think it NOT OK to abort a full term fetus?

Me and the rest of the world. I defy you to find a single instance of an abortion occuring the way you describe except as an emergency measure to preserve the life of the mother.

Choice 1: you think there can be reasonable restrictions on a woman's right to an abortion.

Which we already have -- even Roe permits restrictions on abortion of viable fetuses -- and yet which is unacceptable to the anti-choice crowd.

Choice 2: ?????

Choice 2 is unreasonable restrictions on a woman's right to an abortion, which is what is advocated by the anti-choice crowd.

That's the point, you blithering idiot. The pro-choice people -- none of whom advocate the extreme positions you suggest anyway -- have already accepted reasonable restrictions on a woman's right to an abortion, and it isn't good enough for the anti-choice crowd. That's why you can't present, as you were challenged to do, any suggestion of where the anti-choice crowd is willing to compromise -- they aren't.

So you'll have to pardon me if I fond your concern trolling for even further concessions -- despite the public's acceptance of the status quo -- to be disingenuous and in bad faith.

So let me get this straight, Neil. You are claiming that the left are holding out for abortion by choice (i.e. not for medical reasons) of a full term pregnancy (i.e. due today)? And that's what's stopping us from reaching a compromise?

You are a concern troll - go away.

Neil and I have left the building. Nothing here but idiocy and hate.

Gregory:

I know a am a blithering idiot.

You, on the other hand, are extremely reasonable.

You are willing to accept reasonable restrictions on a woman's right to an abortion.

However, "reasonable" appears to be your definition of "reasonable". I assume that everyone is in favor of "reasonable" restrictions on anything as long as they get to define "reasonable".

Unfortunately, not all of us are as smart as your are. Some people actually disagree.

Jeebus in the post just before you seems to say it is OK to get an abortion in the 9th month. Is he also a 'blithering idiot'?

My point is that reasonable people can differ and there is no point in negotiating with anyone unless the other party will meet you part way. Otherwise just fight it out until you have an unconditional surrender.

Look, I ain't smart enough to know how or where to draw the line. My gut tells me that at some point the woman must lose the right to choose. My gut tells me that it is wrong to abort a fetus when the woman has already dialated 10cm.

Neil,

When your cervix dilates 10 cm, you can make the choice for yourself. When you are faced with eclampsia and gestational diabetes, you can make the choice for yourself. When you are pregnant as a result of rape or birth control failure, you can make that choice for yourself. When you find out that your seven month planned, wanted, loved fetus is hydrocephalic or anencephalic and will not survive outside the womb, you can make the choice for yourself. Unless your doctor says that intact dilation and extraction is actually the safest third trimester procedure for your case, then you're shit out of luck, because Congress and Bush decided they liked playing "doctor" and banned it. Until that time comes, you are cordially invited to go fuck yourself with a jagged rusty spork.

You obviously don't put women anywhere in this equation, and for that reason alone, you go beyond being a concern troll and have flung yourself facefirst into the end zone of misogynist asshole. Fuck off and die, and have a nice day.

Jeebus is being flippant, and you know it.

So let me put it another way. Is it OK to kill the mother to allow the (currently unborn) baby to live, if aborting the baby would absolutely save the mother?

The patient (woman) if mentally/physically capable of making the decision at the time the decision needs to be made, has the final say on all medial treatment. Then the choice goes to her next of kin.

What about the baby? Well, the baby is both physically and mentally unable to make the decision, and the mother is always fully (or joint) next of kin.

This is a medical dilemma, and a life or death decision. It's absolutely not a "lifestyle choice". Are you saying that in all cases the government should have a set rule that says "kill the mother" rather than "let medical circumstances decide"?

This has already been compromised to death over by lawmakers and courts for years and years. The fact you want to argue it again, and use it as an example of the left not compromising, shows massive bad faith.

"You obviously don't put women anywhere in this equation, and for that reason alone, you go beyond being a concern troll and have flung yourself facefirst into the end zone of misogynist asshole. Fuck off and die, and have a nice day."

I do love a civil conversation.

It makes it easier to understand why 45% of the people in this country voted for McCain.

When you have a civil conversation with someone you have a chance. When you make statements like the ones quoted above then they become amunition for the other side.

I know you can't imagine anyone being on the fence on this issue but I would guess that most people reading Keori's posts and my posts would reach the conclusion that Keori is just a tad extreme.

Can you imagine someone from a wingnut blog reading the comments here and using some of these posts to convince people that the Democrats are crazy?

Can you imagin someone from a left wing or right wing blog using my comments to covince people that Democrats or Republicans are crazy?

I find it very disappointing when the pro-choice side acts this way. I am pro choice and always have been. I just try not to be completely insane. I don't always achieve my goal but I always try.

I know a am a blithering idiot.

You've certainly failed to provide any evidence to the contrary in this thread.

You, on the other hand, are extremely reasonable.

I'm happy to leave that to the judgment of the readers.

I assume that everyone is in favor of "reasonable" restrictions on anything as long as they get to define "reasonable". ... Some people actually disagree.

But there's the rub -- since some people -- specifically, the anti choice forces -- will never stop disagreeing until they get their way, any compromise inevitably moves only in their direction and away from the status quo favored by the majority of Americans.

My point is that reasonable people can differ and there is no point in negotiating with anyone unless the other party will meet you part way. Otherwise just fight it out until you have an unconditional surrender.

And no one is disagreeing with that point. However, I've pointed out that it's the anti-choice faction that isn't interested in meeting anyone halfway. You want to suggest that the pro- and anti-choice factions are equally reasonable, but as far as the anti choicers are concerned, you have yet to substatiate that assertion, despite numerous requests.

We already have reasonable restrictions on abortions, and the american people are generally content with the status quo. The anti-choicers, however, insist abortion be illegal, even though most Americans disagree.

Again, and for the last time: Show me where the anti-choice people are willing to compromise. Simply defining anti choice as "reasonable" and pro-choice as "not reasonable" and insisting the latter do the compromising just won't do.

Look, I ain't smart enough to know how or where to draw the line.

But that doesn't stop you from advocating for the anti choice side.

My gut tells me that at some point the woman must lose the right to choose.

Fine. But -- and I'm quite serious here -- why should anyone listen to your gut? Since when does your gut get to dictate what others do? You have to do better than that.

My gut tells me that it is wrong to abort a fetus when the woman has already dialated 10cm.

Fine. But no one seriously suggests that they do so, unless doing so is the only hope for the mother's health.

It's becoming increasingly clear that you aren't arguing in good faith. You seem to want to pretend that the pro choice forces are at fault for not compromising, but you're simply wrong about that. Until you can present where the anti choice forces are willing to compromise, and where exactly the pro choice forces should meet them halfway, we can presume that your concern trolling is just another example of the kind of intellectual and moral bankruptcy that exemplifies the anti-choice extremists.

I'm not holding my breath.

I do love a civil conversation.

Oh, stuff it, neil. You aren't having a civil conversation; you're engaged in intellectually dishonest concern trolling. No one mistakes yours for a reasonable position, because you aren't arguing honestly. You keep talking about compromise and reasonable disagreement, but you refuse to defend the premise that the anti choice crowd is interested in compromise at all.

Without that fact established, your entire argument falls apart, and you won't do it. That dog won't hunt, neil. No one gives a shit any more if someone curses on an internet thread, or is impressed by the false pretense of courtesy by concern trolls refusing to engage in good faith. I think people reading your posts will come to the conclusion that you're an asshole.

I think we're done now.

Jackass.

Forgive me but how on earth would I know what the anti-choice people are willing to compromise on?

I am just stating that I, as a pro-choice person, am in favor of parental notification as long as there is a judicial bypass.

I am not smart enough to know where you draw the lines. I think it is a complicated issue.

I don't think it is right to abort a fetus the day before the due date. I also don't think that is a radical postion.

I do really enjoy watching people like you get carried away. Maybe it does make me an asshole. I haven't carefully reread my posts to see if I wrote something absurd. Maybe I did.

The point of Steve's post and the Washington Post's article is that "some conservatives are reconsidering." It seems to me that SOME people on the other side are willing to compromise to some extent.

However, my main point still stands.

There is no point in negotiating unless you have a reasonable basis to believe the other side is willing to meet you part way.

However, my main point still stands.

There is no point in negotiating unless you have a reasonable basis to believe the other side is willing to meet you part way.

And you've just admitted that you don't know if the anti-choice crowd are willing to. QED.

I do really enjoy watching people like you get carried away.

Like me? I didn't get carried away at all. But thanks also for admitting that you aren't really interested in civil conversation, but in being deliberately obtuse and frustrating any attempt at good-faith diuscussion. Yes, it does make you an asshole. And it also undermines your contention that readers of this thread would conclude that you are reasonable and others not.

Jackass.

Thank you, Keori, Gregory, and Royalblue_Tom for reminding us, with such informed thoughtfulness, that women's lives are at stake in this discussion.

I'd just like to second Mossie's comment.

I'm male, so I don't really have a dog in this hunt. A child will never grow inside my body, I will never know the burdens.

Why in the world should I have a say in what any woman does in this situation? At best, I gave sperm. Let me tell you something: sperm isn't special. I make a more than I can use every day. I've left gallons of it in toilets, old socks, and condoms, and haven't had an emotional connection to any of it.

So if my sperm is the only thing tying me to this decision, does that mean it gets to be mine? I look at pregnancy and childbirth, and then I look at my contribution. The scales are pretty unequal, no?

If I don't have even that minor stake, and I mean this with all sincerity despite my handle, why should my opinion matter?