Pro Choice / Pro Life - who is winning the "Culture war"

[MODU]

I'm an abortion-should-always-be-illegal guy that supported Kerry.  I voted Option 2 btw.

What better way to start off the tread.  Ebowed is the perfect example of what is wrong with the two-party dominated system.  You cannot take a cookie cutter to the voting population and say "Ok, you're a Democrat, so you have to be pro-choice," or "you're a Republican, so you have to be pro-life."  I think this might be part of the issue which keeps half of the eligible voters away from the booths on election day.  If Ebowed was a presidential candidate, he would most-likely not win his party nomination, even though he might be the best choice to win on election day due to his stance on abortion.  The same might hold true if someone like Rudy were to run for the Republicans.    If people vote with their heart, and not with a party, we might see election results similar to the poll numbers that Vorlon posted.

As for me, I'm a "abortion should be legal only in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother" (which is the case my cousin was in last year when her heart started to fail due to the pregnancy).

[MODU]

For example, among the "prolife" side, there is one strand of argument that opposes abortion rights from a "cultural" perspective. They see the ability of women to have sex without "facing the consequences" as an attack on "traditional" society, and oppose abortion rights and contraceptive education with near equal vigor.

My view is similar to this, but a bit expanded.  While yes, "responsibility of your actions" has to be taken into consideration, the burden should not rest upon the mother alone.  The man who impregnates the woman has just as much responsibility for the child.  If the couple is not married, and has no intention to become married, he must provide child support to the mother until the child turns 18 or the child is placed up for addoption.  With the mother being the one who brought the child into the world, it would be her decision to place the child up for adoption, not the fathers.

But in either case, the decision to have sex is theirs alone.  If the woman is not a willing participant (rape, incest,....), abortion should be allowed.  Just as if her life is in danger due to the pregnancy.

[MODU]

The same goes with abortion. The last time the issue was really salient was during the feminist movement of the 1970s. At that time the debate was heavily cultural. Most pro-lifers fit the profile of MODU here, in their beliefs and rhetoric. Today, the pro-life rhetoric has changed, helped by new technologies and strategies, and the dynamics are shifting away from the cultural debate to the moral debate, which is totally different. This means the seeming stability of public opinion and public policy over the decades belie fundamentally shifting dynamics that may leave pro-choice identifiers in for a rude shock once the issue again becomes highly salient (which is likely in the next 2-4 years).

Took two events to change my view on abortion (use to be solely against it):  a dear friend of mine became pregnant, even while using proper birth control, and faced risking harm to her health (and possibly not being able to have kids in the future) if she carried the kid to term (which she did after a lot of sole searching), and as well as my cousin, who developed a heart condition while pregnant, and an abortion was required to save her life (had to stablize her medically before implanting a pace maker). 

Thanks for the lengthy discussion.    It's a hard topic for many.