You're right, of course. But pro-lifers always like to accuse pro-choicers of being abortion lovers.

"Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are misnomers. Pro-life is such a sweeping stance made by many of the same people that support the death penalty. The so-called pro-choicers convieniently ignore the fact that the woman DOES have a choice PRIOR to conception (in most cases at least; I support abortion rights for victims of rape). In any event, it's not about "choice" it's about abortion.

I wonder how the debate would play out if it were framed within the accurate terms, which are "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion".

My stance is simple: in ANY case except for imminent threat to the mother, once there's a detectable heartbeat abortions should not be permitted.

Oh, and one final thing: I don't buy the crappy argument that a woman has some sort of sacred right to do whatever she wants to with her body. By that stupid argument it would be perfectly legal for a crackhead to concieve and pump her pregnant body full of illegal drugs.

But those who favor keeping abortion legal aren't necessarily pro-abortion. I think abortion should be legal, but I would never recommend it to anybody unless there was a major health issue. I'm a strong believer in adoption.

If I could press a magic button and make no woman ever want an abortion again, I'd do it. But the simple fact is that there will always be abortions whether they're legal or not. It's simple economics - as long as the demand exists, somebody will provide the supply. I say it's better to have those abortions that do take place performed by certified professional doctors in safe clinics instead of by rapist quacks in back alleys.

I think the anti-abortion drive should focus on reducing the demand for abortions, not the supply of abortions. If the demand drops the supply will drop too. Unfortunately, the debate is so polarized that neither side will accept that. The pro-lifers are so obsessed with getting abortion banned that they refuse to accept any plan that reduces abortions while still keeping them legal. Meanwhile, the pro-choicers are so paranoid that any move to reduce abortions will lead to abortions getting banned that they oppose any such moves.

Those are the things that really p*ss be off about this debate - the two sides are so focused on beating the other that they can't do things that both would probably agree to. When Obama tried to talk compromise at Notre Dame, he got savaged by both sides for it.

If you really want to be accurate, the proper terms for the abortion debate would be legal abortion vs. ban abortion.

You know what I don't get? Why men bother so much about a topic that isn't even relevant to them. Dertemine a time until which an abortion can take place, and leave it up to the mother to make up her mind until then. It's not like it's an easy decision to make, even if some of the anti-abortion people like to purport it as such.

To stay on topic, I think here abortions are not covered under government healthcare and I don't think it should be.

Max, I don't necessarily disagree with you ... but I cannot for the life of me take the contradictory position of being anti-abortion but feel it should remain legal. Ask yourself: why do you believe abortion is wrong? I'm assuming that you find it to be a question of life (if this isn't the case, why bother wanting to "...press a magic button and make no woman ever want an abortion again..."?).

Therefore, if it is a question of the sanctity of life than how can one logically justify valuing one life over another, especially when the life being granted greater value is the one responsible for the dillema in the first place?

Just because people will do bad things (back-alley abortions, for instance) doesn't mean that bad things should be legal. I mean, REALLY think about this: let's say that mothers would kill their BORN babies in back alleys. Should we then legalize a clinical termination of life?

Like I said, I don't necessarily disagree with you, and I completely agree that both sides are too damned entrenched in their thinking. That's why I prefer my compromise: the heartbeat is the cut-off.

Not relevant to men? Are you nuts?

So wait, let's get this straight - a MAN and woman conceive a child. You know, a child that will effect the rest of both of their lives. ONLY the woman has the choice to carry that child to term. If it's, say, financially inconvienient for the woman, boom - terminate the pregnancy. Let's say it's financially inconvienient for the man (you know, child support and such). What's his out?

Obviously you don't have children else you'd never suggest that a pregnancy is only relevant to the woman.

So, if it's financially inconvenient for the man, what is he gonna do? Force her to abort if she wants to keep the baby? And if she doesn't want to carry the child to term, force her to keep it? HUH??? I'd say the decision is entirely up to her.

The legal side of this whole thing might well be relevant to men, but not the physical act, whether it is carried out or not.

It's interesting how much debate the whole health care thing creates in the US. Here nobody really talks about the health care, except when something is clearly wrong, and then that thing is fixed. Seems to me that it's only a matter of time when there will be a more 'European' health care system in place in the US.

As for the whole abortion debate, looks like they are beginning to attack against doctors who perform abortions again. There was a case just recently. I wonder if the perpetrators of those terrorist acts will be tortured etc.

US healthcare is the classic Conundrum within an enigma. It is so vast and so corrupt, it's difficult to have a rational discussion regarding the subject.

One thing is true though, healthcare is the only service that I can think of where you have absolutely no idea of the final cost when you order the service.

If you take your car in for service, the cost is usually posted on the wall or shown to you on a computer screen. There may be unforseen extras that arise during the service, but you have a pretty good idea of the cost when you start.

With healthcare, try getting a hospital to quote you on the cost of a colonoscopy. It's a known procedure performed thousands of times a day in hospitals accross this land, but try getting one of them to give you a cost for it prior to you having it.

They won't. And why won't they? Because the price they quote to the insurance company is greatly inflated, and until they know what the insurance company will actually pay, they can't possibly tell the patient what their contribution will be.

Interesting comment thread on reddit comparing experiences in 'ealth care.

Mostly US-centric, but a few Auslanders commenting as well.

Obviously any conjecture about any health service has an anecdote to back it up, but there are some interesting ones here.

http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/c...s_is_the_bill/

I can't really ask myself that question because I don't believe abortion is morally wrong. I just don't like it. I also don't like cosmetic surgery, but I don't think it is morally wrong, and I certainly don't think it should be illegal.

But I agree with you on the larger point. I think setting a certain stage of fetal development as the cutoff is a good idea. The heartbeat is a good possibility, the first brain activity is another. I have to confess that I don't know which comes first.

Interesting snippet from a BBC article on last night's conference.

Well I think he (Obama) finds the press much more accomodating than his predecessor.

Seems to me that there is a lot more to fatherhood than just a "legal side" but be that as it may i'd think that even the legal responsibilities alone are enough to justify a man having some say in this issue.

How about the woman makes the decision but if the man disagrees with it before the fact it absolves him of the legal or financial responsibility? That's fair ain't it?

This is so true too bad newsmen don't tell it like it is ...

Sorry I got the thread going the wrong way on abortion ... I just wanted to point out that all is not fine and dandy in the democratic party.

Did you notice how many times Obama refered to himself as the President of the United States?

Twice in this press conference and twice in the last press conference (once with anger when the name of John McCain was mentioned).

I think he has an ego problem that can't stand any negative views about his presidency.

One person on CNN said "Obama spent more time on what dog to get and what to name the dog than he has on health care", but of course that's not true.

Obama's words bite back, but somehow it doesn't sound balanced more like a college debate that he intends to win.

Did you believe him when he said this is not about him?