Giuliani Voices Continued Support for Public Funding of Abortion

[Puddles]

I was responding to Jillian’s challenge, though her challenge was directed to Bern80. Okay. You don’t like Wikipedia as a source. Do you like Guttmacher?

See http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.html

The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child.

Yeah I know you were responding to Jillian but it doesn't disprove what Jillian said, nor does it have any relevance to what anyone has argued in this thread so far...it doesn't answer any questions either. In fact, I'm pretty sure these stats have already posted in this thread...therefore I still don't understand the reason for posting those stats. Just trying to understand what point you're attempting to make here.

 

[Bern80]

No opinions are opinion, not facts. Nobody's opinion can really defined as right or wrong - opinions are based on perceptions, experiences, etc. Just because you don't agree with one's opinions, does not make it wrong.

This is ludicrous Puddles. You're saying someone can't have an opinion about something that also happens to be true? I can site hundred examples, but let's use a couple from the boards here. There was a debate about who caused 9/11. One group is of the opinion that it was an inside government job, another believes it was terrorists. Those are the two opinions. Obviously the can't both be the case so one opinion is right and one is not. Another: One group believes that human produced CO2 is haveing a major effect on global warming, another has the opinion that it is not a major factor. One of those opinions is right the other is not. I am of the opinion that sometime in the womb a group of cells becomes a feeling human and I am either right or wrong.

Of course we all judge whether we realize it or not but it's usually done in our minds/thoughts or through gossip, but judging a person and then condemning the for it? That's what you (and others) have done is judge others and dictate your opinion as being some sort facts. BTW, how do you think abortion laws/debate came about? By lawmaker's judgments and opinions that are supposed to be based on some type of morality.

Again as far as condemnation goes my argument focuses primarily on abortion when the the fetus is fully developed into a human. Again we have laws against killing innocent humans.

Forcing a woman to have a baby when she does not want one (whatever the reason) is a form punishment both for her and the potential child.

Why do you not see this is the exact same thing as telling someone they don't need to take responsibility for their actions? Which is going to make for a better society. Showing people that they can get off the hook for whatever bad decisions they make? If that's the case what incentive is their to stop making bad choices? Or getting people to understand that with serious choices come serious consequences?

You're not directly interfering with it but you're also advocating that she not be able to make the choice she sees fit and thus keep the abortion debate going.

As I have said before is I am all for haveing the right to choose. Many of those choices can be made well before a woman is pregnant and is deciding whether to abort or not. What I don't believe is that people should have an out for every single outcome they may find undesirable. That's life. Some choices have negative consequences. Specifically you may find yourself in the position of deciding do I kill this other human because of some choices I made.

There are many people who think like you and will protest against outside abortion clinics or lobby the government for abortion laws...that's interfering - not you specifically but people who think like you. Bottom line, it shouldn't be up for debate at all because it's really none of your business...but yet there always the centre of controversy.

What I think is very simple: No one has the right to end an innocent human's life, period. There is no debate about this. We have laws against committing such an act.

Where the debate really is, is at what point does that group of cells becomes human? Scientifically and bilogically that happens at some point in the womb. To abort anytime after that point, the government has every right to intereven because again one of government's responsibility is to protect innocent human life.

 

[Puddles]

This is ludicrous Puddles. You're saying someone can't have an opinion about something that also happens to be true? I can site hundred examples, but let's use a couple from the boards here. There was a debate about who caused 9/11. One group is of the opinion that it was an inside government job, another believes it was terrorists. Those are the two opinions. Obviously the can't both be the case so one opinion is right and one is not. Another: One group believes that human produced CO2 is haveing a major effect on global warming, another has the opinion that it is not a major factor. One of those opinions is right the other is not. I am of the opinion that sometime in the womb a group of cells becomes a feeling human and I am either right or wrong.

First off, you're comparing apples to oranges. Where there is fact to back up your case, it's not really an opinion, you stating facts. However, in the case where there is no facts to backup either side or where there is gray area (e.g. like abortion) then it really comes down to a matter of opinion an choice.

Again as far as condemnation goes my argument focuses primarily on abortion when the the fetus is fully developed into a human. Again we have laws against killing innocent humans.

Yes but we're not really arguing about that specifically, it's abortion in general... but ok fine.

Why do you not see this is the exact same thing as telling someone they don't need to take responsibility for their actions?

Because it's not, plain and simple.

Which is going to make for a better society.

And bringing more unwanted children into our society is going to make it better? You're not thinking this through at all...I've already made my argument for this earlier so I won't repeat it.

Showing people that they can get off the hook for whatever bad decisions they make? If that's the case what incentive is their to stop making bad choices? Or getting people to understand that with serious choices come serious consequences?

A few things. First off all having an abortion is not getting off the hook. You have no idea what mental, physical, emotional anguish that is felt (neither do I) but I can speculate how hard of a decision it must be.

It's part of human development and growth to make our own choice, regardless how bad they might...otherwise how are we going to ever learn.

Secondly, what might be a bad decision to you, might not be for others. You can't declare something a bad decision and expect everyone is going to see it as being bad as well.

Thirdly, who of any of us are in the position to teach others what's good and bad when it comes to personal choice? What you may think is immoral or wrong, others might not. It's one thing if your guidance is asked for or welcommed but when it's not, your forcing your opinions onto others.

As I have said before is I am all for haveing the right to choose.

Well your posts have indicated otherwise. But if it that's true, then why are we still having this discussion?

Many of those choices can be made well before a woman is pregnant and is deciding whether to abort or not.

I have no idea where you're getting this from. As I have stated several times now, birth control is not fool-proof, rape occurs, medical emergencies...some things are out of our control and if we can get things back into control, why not? It is taking responsibility for one's actions...you just chose not to see it that way.

What I don't believe is that people should have an out for every single outcome they may find undesirable. That's life. Some choices have negative consequences. Specifically you may find yourself in the position of deciding do I kill this other human because of some choices I made.

I don't understand what you're getting at here but I think it's not very wise for you to take the position that people getting abortions are only doing so out of selfishness or a way out...you are in no position to make that accusation or judgment. Each case is different and again it really doesn't concern you.

 

[jillian]

Ten percent of all after 3 months...150k per year in the US.

http://206.229.193.98/topics/articles/article_59.asp

So? Almost all are done during the first trimester. In fact, according to your link, half are done within 8 weeks. The reasons for aborting later are, most likely, the results of amniocentesis. You have a problem with that?

D & E's? They can be done by any quack willing to do them:

http://www.abortion.com/abortion_clinics_late_term.php

And for any reason. Your abortion guru admits that on his site:

http://www.drtiller.com/elect.html

Choice, you know.

I'm ok with that. Again, your link says nothing about them being "quacks", it merely lists a few clinics which are available for late term abortion. I'm not quite sure how this disputes anything I've said.

The vast majority are very clear about doing it for the $$$. SCOTUS really had some of that there medical judgement back in 1973, eh?

This assertion is unsubstantiated. Please show where the "vast majority" do it for money. Even if that were the case, most of us do our jobs for money and not for free. So your point?

Yeah, what in the hell would a late-term abortion have to do with RvW?

Again, it's a red herring that the anti-choice folk love to use and it DOESN'T fall under Roe v Wade which covers only the first trimester. That doesn't make anything after illegal, it just makes it subject to a different analysis.

Surely, you know they're still legal awaiting appeal, which you will lose this time:

Well, given Bush's litmus test for judges, why would this surprise me?

If you think you should interfere with the relationship between doctor and patient, more power to you.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200610/CUL20061024a.html

Would you lie to me baby if it wasn't true? And Giuliani's over.

No, baby...but that wasn't my link.

As for Guiliani being "over", not my issue. But if the right wants to go for an extremist who can't win a general election, I'm perfectly fine with that.

Good to see you, btw.

 

[UnAmericanYOU]

This stupid phone won't stop ringing!!!

So? Almost all are done during the first trimester. In fact, according to your link, half are done within 8 weeks. The reasons for aborting later are, most likely, the results of amniocentesis. You have a problem with that?

A problem with what exactly? Abortion in general?

Well, yeah, but your "most likely" phrase is the crux of the problem - it's still abortion on demand, anytime for any reason. We both know the later the abortion, the harder it is to stomach.

I'm ok with that. Again, your link says nothing about them being "quacks", it merely lists a few clinics which are available for late term abortion. I'm not quite sure how this disputes anything I've said.

You said "ob/gyns" in a casual manner - most of them won't go near any abortion procedure, very few will begin to touch a "D/E".

And Tiller's still a quack and a butcher.

This assertion is unsubstantiated. Please show where the "vast majority" do it for money. Even if that were the case, most of us do our jobs for money and not for free. So your point?

That abortion is a big business in of itself, those mills make a TON of money.

Again, it's a red herring that the anti-choice folk love to use and it DOESN'T fall under Roe v Wade which covers only the first trimester. That doesn't make anything after illegal, it just makes it subject to a different analysis.

No, the whacky trimester rule is derived from RvW, and it's meaningless when "health of the mother" could mean a broken nail.

What you have which liberals deny is abortion available anytime for any reason in this country.

Well, given Bush's litmus test for judges, why would this surprise me?

Kennedy's persuadable.

If you think you should interfere with the relationship between doctor and patient, more power to you.

Doctors should heal, not kill.

No, baby...but that wasn't my link.

That song was running through my head, I wasn't calling you or your link a liar - still, this issue has been marred by deception since the get-go.

As for Guiliani being "over", not my issue.

It's the title of the thread.

But if the right wants to go for an extremist who can't win a general election, I'm perfectly fine with that.

That's what they said about Ronald Reagan, and people are more pro-life now than back then.

Good to see you, btw.

Likewise.

 

[Bern80]

First off, you're comparing apples to oranges. Where there is fact to back up your case, it's not really an opinion, you stating facts. However, in the case where there is no facts to backup either side or where there is gray area (e.g. like abortion) then it really comes down to a matter of opinion an choice.

Wrong, I gave two specific examples. The truth is known in neither of them. Because we don't know the truth doesn't mean there isn't one. And when that truth is found one side's a opinion will be shown to be correct and the other's to be incorrect.

By gray area I'm guessing you mean in terms of whether the thing in the womb is human? If that's the case in term of this gray area, you would really rather err on the side of essentially giving the mother the right to possibly kill rather than err on the side of protecting possible human life?

Yes but we're not really arguing about that specifically, it's abortion in general... but ok fine.

Correct we are speaking in general and as I have said time and time again. Before a certain point I find abortion morally wrong and after a certain point it should be made illegal.

Because it's not, plain and simple.

It most certainly is. A responsible choice is one that is the most right or as right as it can be for all parties involved. The choice to abort clearly does not take into account the best interests of all the affected parties. And don't try your "the baby's life will be crap anyway" argument. You don't know that nor any clue as to the great person such a child could become.

And bringing more unwanted children into our society is going to make it better? You're not thinking this through at all...I've already made my argument for this earlier so I won't repeat it.

I have thought it through and I have even explained. Your logic in this area is completely faulty. Your assumption which you have not denied is that unwanted children will have a more difficult life than those that are wanted. I say so what, some of the greatest people in history probable come from just those circumstances. And who are you to claim to know how their life would turn out? You would deny them the opportunity to live over a maybe?

It's part of human development and growth to make our own choice, regardless how bad they might...otherwise how are we going to ever learn.

How do learn from poor choices that have no consequences?

Secondly, what might be a bad decision to you, might not be for others. You can't declare something a bad decision and expect everyone is going to see it as being bad as well.

In your case cleary not.

Thirdly, who of any of us are in the position to teach others what's good and bad when it comes to personal choice? What you may think is immoral or wrong, others might not. It's one thing if your guidance is asked for or welcommed but when it's not, your forcing your opinions onto others.

We all are. Suicide is a personal choice, but if you do nothing to stop it legally you are as guilty as if you shot the person yourself. Your description describes the teen - parent relationship to a T. Do they willingly take advice? no. Does that mean they don't need to be coached in their decision making? no.

Not that I will change your mind on this, but morality is not a person to person issue. Something is either moral or it isn't.

Well your posts have indicated otherwise. But if it that's true, then why are we still having this discussion?

No and again I have been very clear on this. You have the right to choose, including the right to make a bad choice up until your choice has a direct impact on someone else.

I have no idea where you're getting this from. As I have stated several times now, birth control is not fool-proof, rape occurs, medical emergencies...some things are out of our control and if we can get things back into control, why not? It is taking responsibility for one's actions...you just chose not to see it that way.

Woman also have the right to choose to have sex or not, that's where I got it. I'm not disagreeing about your birth control point. Most forms quite clearly state that they are not 100% effective. Again taking responsibilty for one's actions means makeing the best choice for all effected parties.

I don't understand what you're getting at here but I think it's not very wise for you to take the position that people getting abortions are only doing so out of selfishness or a way out...you are in no position to make that accusation or judgment. Each case is different and again it really doesn't concern you.

I have the right to judge all I want. What is right for me may not be right for you.

 

[Gunny]

And that's exactly what the womb-to-heaven Republicans want.

And what is it exactly pro-choicer's want? The right to exterminate human life for convenience or to escape the consequences of their irresponsible actions.

This isn't a one-sided issue. For every pro-life, no abortion for any reason voice, there is a corresponding abortion whenever, wherever, no reason necesssary one that thinks one should be allowed to terminate on day one or in the 9th month if that's what they choose.

Neither are right, IMO.

 

[maineman]

And what is it exactly pro-choicer's want? The right to exterminate human life for convenience or to escape the consequences of their irresponsible actions.

This isn't a one-sided issue. For every pro-life, no abortion for any reason voice, there is a corresponding abortion whenever, wherever, no reason necesssary one that thinks one should be allowed to terminate on day one or in the 9th month if that's what they choose.

Neither are right, IMO.

Neither of those positions are right...obviously.

I tend to disagree with your suggested ratio for their prevalence. Methinks that there are a lot more folks who believe that human life begins and exists at the moment of conception and that any abortion, therefore, is murder, than there are folks who feel that abortion is perfectly dandy right up until the cervix starts to dialate and that there is no moral dilemma facing women who would make such a choice.....

but that's just my opinion.

 

[jasendorf]

And what is it exactly pro-choicer's want? The right to exterminate human life for convenience or to escape the consequences of their irresponsible actions.

This isn't a one-sided issue. For every pro-life, no abortion for any reason voice, there is a corresponding abortion whenever, wherever, no reason necesssary one that thinks one should be allowed to terminate on day one or in the 9th month if that's what they choose.

Neither are right, IMO.

Perhaps so... but giving the anti-choice crowd an inch encourages them to take a mile. They will never allow for a compromise. They want a full ban of all abortions a la Ken Blackwell... and any concession you make for them they take it as encouragement to try and take some more. They've proven time and again that they'll abuse any concession you make towards the middle... I'm done with trying to pacify them.

 

[Bern80]

Perhaps so... but giving the anti-choice crowd an inch encourages them to take a mile. They will never allow for a compromise. They want a full ban of all abortions a la Ken Blackwell... and any concession you make for them they take it as encouragement to try and take some more. They've proven time and again that they'll abuse any concession you make towards the middle... I'm done with trying to pacify them.

Yes I know generalizing makes things a lot easier for you. Yet there are 6 pages of conversation here that I, an anti-abortion person, participated in that clearly state otherwise.

Clarify for me please again what the compromise is for that pro-choice side. Last I checked one hasn't been offered.

 

[maineman]

Yes I know generalizing makes things a lot easier for you. Yet there are 6 pages of conversation here that I, an anti-abortion person, participated in that clearly state otherwise.

Clarify for me please again what the compromise is for that pro-choice side. Last I checked one hasn't been offered.

when the pro-life side believes that human life and legal personhood begins at conception, where is there room to really compromise?

I, for one, would personally be all for parental notification and waiting periods and counselling as to other options and some timeframe after which abortion is illegal, but the pro-choice leadership would be silly to offer up such compromises.... they would be gobbled up by the pro-life crowd yet they will never abandon their quest to make all abortion illegal, so such a compromise only gives ground and gets nothing in return.... it just makes abortion more restrictive but does not stop the crusade from the right to make them more and more restrictive and ultimately illegal and criminal and felonious.

 

[jasendorf]

Yes I know generalizing makes things a lot easier for you. Yet there are 6 pages of conversation here that I, an anti-abortion person, participated in that clearly state otherwise.

Clarify for me please again what the compromise is for that pro-choice side. Last I checked one hasn't been offered.

Did you read what I wrote? If we felt we could offer a compromise with the extremist anti-choicers... we would. No one wants for a pregnancy to end in abortion. And, us bleeding hearts feel deep sorrow for that potential child every time we hear or read about a late term abortion. My sister, at 17, considered abortion... I told her she'd regret it the rest of her life and hopefully made some positive impression in her decision not have one.

But let's consider two things... what compromise would the anti-choice crowd accept? If you can tell me of a compromise inbetween a complete ban of abortion and a complete allowance of abortion which the anti-choice side would accept as the end of the discussion... tell it to me and I'll stand by it. I'm tired of the Republicans having this wedge issue for which they do nothing about when they have the power to do something about it yet insist that their lemmings vote for them so they can do something about it. I'm dying for a compromise which will allow women to have an abortion in the first trimester for any reason and the second two trimesters for good reasons (with allowances for moment a woman has become aware she is pregnant).

But that compromise will never come. The anti-choicers would take that compromise and turn it black-and-white to use it as a stepping stone to completely outlawing abortion.

Once again... tell me what position you, as an anti-abortion advocate, would accept as a compromise and that the majority of anti-abortion advocates would accept.

 

[Gunny]

Neither of those positions are right...obviously.

I tend to disagree with your suggested ratio for their prevalence. Methinks that there are a lot more folks who believe that human life begins and exists at the moment of conception and that any abortion, therefore, is murder, than there are folks who feel that abortion is perfectly dandy right up until the cervix starts to dialate and that there is no moral dilemma facing women who would make such a choice.....

but that's just my opinion.

I tend to feel that the majority in the middle from both sides tend to see that there ARE medical circumstances that necessitate an abortion, and I would be hard-pressed to tell a pregnant woman who decided to get an abortion that I thought she was wrong. Likewise a case of incest.

For myself as far as my family is concerned I don't know that I could ever condone abortion, but then, that IS my business.

My objections comes in when irresponsible people use it as a means of birth control when such measures could under normal cicumstances be prevented.

While I believe it is taking a human life, I do not believe in all cases it is an issue of "murder." We justify killing all the time.

I see that as far more of a common sense approach, and I suspect that is how the majority in the middle feels.

 

[Gunny]

Perhaps so... but giving the anti-choice crowd an inch encourages them to take a mile. They will never allow for a compromise. They want a full ban of all abortions a la Ken Blackwell... and any concession you make for them they take it as encouragement to try and take some more. They've proven time and again that they'll abuse any concession you make towards the middle... I'm done with trying to pacify them.

And many of the anti-choice crowd feel exactly the same about the pro-choice crowd ... give them an inch and they will take a mile. Naturally, the people willing to compromise by their very nature aren't going to drive the extremists' trains.

But someone needs to quit letting the extremists drive the issue.

 

[jasendorf]

And many of the anti-choice crowd feel exactly the same about the pro-choice crowd ... give them an inch and they will take a mile. Naturally, the people willing to compromise by their very nature aren't going to drive the extremists' trains.

But someone needs to quit letting the extremists drive the issue.

I see nothing extreme about continuing to allow women liberty and freedom regarding their personal reproductive systems within reason. The problem is that the only way we can assure ANY form of individual control and freedom for women in this issue is to fight every concession made towards the extremists on the right because they will never stop until they've completely and wholly taken away the reproductive rights of every American.

Oh, and my proposition to Bern80 holds true to you too Gunny... if you can show me a compromise under which the anti-choice crowd will say "ok, that's enough of a compromise, we won't try to go any farther," then put it out there and I'll support it.


And, as a note, the choice crowd already has a mile. They have Roe. Any compromise will mean giving the anti-choice crowd something and taking away from the choice crowd. The anti-choice crowd can't give the choice crowd and inch... they don't have an inch to give.

 

[mattskramer]

And many of the anti-choice crowd feel exactly the same about the pro-choice crowd ... give them an inch and they will take a mile. Naturally, the people willing to compromise by their very nature aren't going to drive the extremists' trains.

But someone needs to quit letting the extremists drive the issue.

Do we actually agree on something here – moderation!?!?

 

[mattskramer]

I see nothing extreme about continuing to allow women liberty and freedom regarding their personal reproductive systems within reason. The problem is that the only way we can assure ANY form of individual control and freedom for women in this issue is to fight every concession made towards the extremists on the right because they will never stop until they've completely and wholly taken away the reproductive rights of every American.

So is it your position that people of any age should be allowed to have an abortion at any time, including the 35th week of pregnancy, by any means and for any reason or no reason at all?

Oh, and my proposition to Bern80 holds true to you too Gunny... if you can show me a compromise under which the anti-choice crowd will say "ok, that's enough of a compromise, we won't try to go any farther," then put it out there and I'll support it.

By definition, an anti-choice person would not give a compromise. Otherwise that person would be a moderate. By definition, a pro-choice person would not give a compromise. Otherwise that person would be a moderate.

And, as a note, the choice crowd already has a mile. They have Roe. Any compromise will mean giving the anti-choice crowd something and taking away from the choice crowd. The anti-choice crowd can't give the choice crowd and inch... they don't have an inch to give.

 

[Bern80]

Did you read what I wrote? If we felt we could offer a compromise with the extremist anti-choicers... we would. No one wants for a pregnancy to end in abortion. And, us bleeding hearts feel deep sorrow for that potential child every time we hear or read about a late term abortion. My sister, at 17, considered abortion... I told her she'd regret it the rest of her life and hopefully made some positive impression in her decision not have one.

But let's consider two things... what compromise would the anti-choice crowd accept? If you can tell me of a compromise inbetween a complete ban of abortion and a complete allowance of abortion which the anti-choice side would accept as the end of the discussion... tell it to me and I'll stand by it. I'm tired of the Republicans having this wedge issue for which they do nothing about when they have the power to do something about it yet insist that their lemmings vote for them so they can do something about it. I'm dying for a compromise which will allow women to have an abortion in the first trimester for any reason and the second two trimesters for good reasons (with allowances for moment a woman has become aware she is pregnant).

But that compromise will never come. The anti-choicers would take that compromise and turn it black-and-white to use it as a stepping stone to completely outlawing abortion.

Once again... tell me what position you, as an anti-abortion advocate, would accept as a compromise and that the majority of anti-abortion advocates would accept.

As a member of the 'anti-abortion crowd' I believe I already did. Legally I think woman should be free to make the choice within a finite amount of time to have a child. After that point I think it should be legal. We don't have the scientific ability to say after x date this group of cells is human. What we have now is a grey area that i would guess would look somthing like this and is also how my compromise would look


_____legal__________/____________________/_____illegal___________
cells ________________grey area_____________human

 

[jasendorf]

So is it your position that people of any age should be allowed to have an abortion at any time, including the 35th week of pregnancy, by any means and for any reason or no reason at all?

If that's the only way to assure that a reasonable, mentally capable woman of at least voting age can retain her right to have an abortion in the 1st week of her pregnancy, yes. And, as unfortunate as it is, I feel that not giving an inch from the current status quo is the only way to assure that. Mostly I'd like to live in a country where a single teenaged-mother is stigmatized, berated, shunned and ostracized for being a single teenaged-mother. That was what worried my sister the most about having a child at 17.

By definition, an anti-choice person would not give a compromise. Otherwise that person would be a moderate. By definition, a pro-choice person would not give a compromise. Otherwise that person would be a moderate.

That's a fallacy and failed logic. Neither of those labels require the definition you've proposed. You can be pro-choice with limits and anti-choice within limits. Either that or you're saying that "moderate" denotes a complete void of any convictions whatsoever.

By your logic... pro-automobiles means pro-speeding... pro-smoking means pro-smoking in hospitals... and pro-gambling means 10-year-olds at the poker tables in Vegas... that's faulty logic.

 

[maineman]

I tend to feel that the majority in the middle from both sides tend to see that there ARE medical circumstances that necessitate an abortion, and I would be hard-pressed to tell a pregnant woman who decided to get an abortion that I thought she was wrong. Likewise a case of incest.

For myself as far as my family is concerned I don't know that I could ever condone abortion, but then, that IS my business.

My objections comes in when irresponsible people use it as a means of birth control when such measures could under normal cicumstances be prevented.

While I believe it is taking a human life, I do not believe in all cases it is an issue of "murder." We justify killing all the time.

I see that as far more of a common sense approach, and I suspect that is how the majority in the middle feels.

I have no doubt that there are reasonable people such as you (and me) on both sides of this issue. My point was: that from a pragmatic political perspective, the pro-choice crowd cannot afford to move to the center and look for compromise because those that believe that personhood begins at conception and that abortion in all cases is murder, will not compromise and they will continue to fight untl they achieve victory.