Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We already have compromise, it's called C-H-O-I-C-E. Those who believe in it can choose it, those who don't can reject it. And I very much doubt it's split right down party lines as you seem to believe.
Not with the electorate but it is split down party lines for nearly every public office, at least at the national level.
Abortion is still the biggest wedge issue in our politics, moreso than LGBT rights which is a very big wedge. A candidate can't be elected as a Republican without being pro-life and can't be elected as a Democrat without being pro-choice. There are probably some exceptions to this in local offices, but that is pretty much the rule for any national or statewide office.
I am for compromise on the issue. I think abortion should be banned after the first trimester except in cases of rape, incest, or medical complications. During the first trimester, there should be no restrictions on it. However, that position is too conservative for most Democrats and too liberal for most Republicans. It's common sense though.
In my interaction with my more conservative/Republican friends/family, they really do support the freedom of choice. As long as it coincides with their belief system, their definition of values and morals. It looks and feels like freedom of choice as long as you subscribe to same/similar set of views/perceptions.
The minute you deviate (and I do "deviate") from that set of views/perceptions, it changes from an issue of personal freedom of choice to an issue of their religious freedoms.
Mmhmmm...which means that they truly don't support freedom of choice.
We have the separation of church and state here....so RvW should still "stand" , with some limitations to the situation, such as more clauses on late term abortions etc. Heck, in my humble opinion, we have the medical technology for women to walk into the drug store for the day after pill, and pregnancy testing which allows almost everyone to be aware of the pregnancy very early on. So, besides for certain select situations ( which I am not going to list here, nor debate here) woman can chose to receive pregnancy termination very , very early on. In most cases, they do not need to wait until later in the pregnancy.
Churches that are against termination of pregnancy could start helping those who wish to give birth to the child...this form of "help" could take many and all forms. This would be in line with their desire to support life.
I personally do not support the concept of abortion as a birth control method. BUT it is not for me to tell someone else what to do.
But I will leave this little bit of info. See Roe vs. Wade there has been a DRASTIC decline in abortions in the USA. The belief is that at that time -- when abortions became legal, but weren't allowed to be federally funded for the record...there was also a push for sex education and providing easier access to birth control.
Making it illegal won't deter women from seeking them out. The rich will be approved for their D & C's and still have 'procedures'....it will be the poor that will travel to back lane and alley ways to get the job done.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
