If the anti-choice (often erroneously referred to as "pro-life")were truly concerned about reducing the number of abortions as opposed to controlling women's reproductive systems they would promote fair and balanced sex education programs (that treat the subjects with respect and truly inform them) rather than brain-dead "abstinence-only" scams. They don't support them, and they ARE only interested in controlling women.

"Pro-life" is an erroneous term because it implies that those who oppose it are somehow anti-life. This is not the case. I venture to say that most "pro-choice" proponents are ANTI capital punishment, ANTI war, and are more likely to be vegetarians. Certainly the humans who committed crimes are alive, as are those who would be battlefiend enemies, and Mother Nature's other beings. Similarly, among the "anti-choice" (NOT "pro-life") you find more warmongers, proponents of capital punishment, and animal eaters. All such actions are decidedly ANTI-life.

And finally, you cannot compromise. You either endorse the right of a woman to make her own reproductive choices or you have the state makes those decisions for her. There is no medium ground. It is a binary choice, not a spectrum. Those who suggest "compromise" are content to let the state make some decisions for the woman, and do not endorse a woman's right to choose, period.

Is it totally impossible to be logical in this argument?