🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr10.223308.5691@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mikeh@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (michael p.herlihy) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.185433.14853@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Apr06.172500.3090@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us>
>>rstevew@deeptht.santa-cruz.ca.us (Richard Steven Walz) writes:
>>
>>>I am puzzled by your sig. having pro-choice anti-Roe. These would seem
>>>to be opposites in common usage. Please explain.
>>
>>I'm in favor of a woman having the ability to choose abortion, against
>>the idea that this is mandated by the Constitution.
>>
>
>What is the consensus on the net for a national abortion law?
>
>I am pro-life but think this issue is tearing the country apart.
>I would like to have it settled. I don't think having 50 different
>state laws is right.  It just favors those people who have the 
>money to travel to a state with more liberal laws.
>
>My idea of a compromise:
>
>	(1) Legal abortion to 14 weeks.
>	(2) Legal abortion health of the mother
>	(3) Legal abortion rape/incest
>
>I still believe abortion is wrong but legalizing any action
>does not make it morally right. It leaves the decision to
>the mother.
>
>--
Why can't everyone come to this conclusion?  I'm pro-choice, but I would
have no problem with this compromise!  I'm sure alot of people wouldn't
(there's always a few that will never be satisfied).  This is indeed a
moral issue and I believe that the individual should have the ultimate
say so on what they should do based on their own backround.  This, to
me, is the closest thing to a REAL compromise.  Neither side gets to
take all.

My hats off to you Mike.  Great idea!

Marissa