Though, even I have my limits. I do not have any compromise date as of yet, but even 12 weeks might be pushing it too late.

Marc – I had some trouble wording this post. I was afraid that some would interpret it as if I meant that all debate about abortion is “divisive” and should therefore not be held. That’s not what I meant. There’s nothing wrong with the debate, perhaps with the way in which both extremes debate it, but the debate itself is good; healthy even.

BTW: my views on abortion have changed uh I mean evolved. I’m against it now – the calm approach worked with me, especially the one used often by Christine Stanley. The emotional one did not.

Furthermore, as Christine alludes to, the “divisiveness” of the abortion issue has existed since mankind learned to kill the baby while sparing the mother. Does Roe v. Wade obligate me to repudiate the moral standard of all recorded history just so radical women’s groups won’t have to acknowledge that many people reject their agenda?

Personally I am willing to compromise. Draw a line in the sand at 12 weeks and that’s it. Will NOW agree to end the divisiveness? Hardly.

Though I’m a Christian and on some issues a social conservative, can we stop equating Christians with social conservatives. There are many Christians who would not necessarily consider themselves social conservatives. In fact a fair number are pro-choice.

At any rate, this along with the recent legislation to protect freedom of conscience for healthcare workers are surely an attempt to claim and hold a little bit of the gains made by the prolife movement before the Obama administration reverses them. And yes, in that sense it is provocative, like a line in the sand. Should Obama choose to keep his promise to enact FOCA, he won’t be able to do it under the radar so he’ll at least have to answer to the large part of our society that doesn’t accept abortion on demand.