Is there a middle ground for people who are pro-life, and those who are pro-choice?

Babies aren't aborted except in very limited cases where the mother's life is in extreme danger. What can be aborted is a fetus up until the age of viability. I can't imagine anyone in their right mind wanting to adopt a bloody mass of decaying flesh, dressing it up for Sunday school, and escorting it to play in the local decaying flesh soccer league. Seriously, that's just too disgusting!

There really cannot be a middle ground. Either a fetus is a fully human life, deserving of legal protection (unless the pregnancy threatens the mother's life), or it is not.

Adoption is not a middle ground. Many women simply don't want to carry a child to term, with all that that involves, only to hand it over to strangers afterward and then perhaps never see or hear from their child again. Although I believe abortion is wrong, I can understand why some women find more closure from abortion than adoption.

The best way to prevent abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancy. We know how to do that: either total abstinence, or consistent use of two or more fairly reliable contraceptive methods simultaneously (since any method can fail even when used correctly). We know how, but the abortions keep happening anyway.

I would suggest a middle ground would be for both sides to work on all available options to make abortion as unnecessary as possible. I would imagine most people would agree abortion is an undesirable practice. We should attempt to utilize any and all methods to lower the number of abortions performed. Some possible ways of reducing abortions would be educating young people about the risks of sex at an age when they are unprepared for the possible consequences, stream-lining the adoption process and encouraging more adoptions, and possibly even some day inventing a life-support system that would incubate an unborn child outside of the mother's womb until the child became viable.

There is a middle ground. But it's not flat. Just push her down some stairs.

Seriously though, the pro lifers never consider what happens to the baby after it's born. Being in a foster home or worse, an adoption center? Who would want that for a life?

There's no middle ground, because WE are not the ones who are pregnant, the woman is and she alone will suffer the consequences of hers actions to abort, adopt, or to be a mother -- thus it's hers choice to choose.

But let's be honest, pro-lifers are the only ones wanting to cut access to birth control, sex ed, and social services for the poor, that is known to prevent abortions and get people out of poverty. While wanting to force women into keeping their unwanted pregnancies by laws that close down abortion clinics and scaring future abortion doctors, and using fallacies and religion against science by calling a non-sentient and parasitical fetus..."an innocent baby" to mind frak women out of aborting.

That's why crime rates in america is going up now, when years ago reported crime was down.

abortions keep crime rates down, and now clinics are closing down by the truck loads...crime will be through the roof, 15- 20 years from now.... while, these pro-life people don't have to worry about it in their neighborhoods.

Pro-lifers just want to keep certain people poor and uneducated, so they would join the military or serve them at McDonalds @ $7.50 p/h.

No there really isn't much of a middle ground, you can't give an aborted baby up for adoption for a lot of reasons, the first one being we don't abort babies, we abort fetuses which actually fit the clinical definition of parasite and not "child" "baby" or any other term anti-choicers prefer, you can't change English definitions to help your argument. Second, adoption is not as easy as it would seem when explained by anti-choice advocates, many people who put up children for adoption suffer extreme emotional issues with it and awful legal problems with open adoptions, and the adoption system in general, not to mention the physical toll on their bodies. It's not the obligation of any woman to carry a child for another, while it can be a beautiful sacrifice, it is not a requirement. Truthfully? It's her choice and not your business.

Yes. That middle ground is a rational understanding, based upon viability.

Which is what many US states have come to. Until the fetus is viable (about 24 weeks), abortion is legal without restrictions. After 24 weeks, it is legal (in my state, at least, and numerous others) only in the case of a threat to the mother's health or life.

There. Simple common ground.

Murdering a fetus does not come under proper care for your body unless your body is threatened. Aborted babies are not alive. In the case that they are still alive they are often murdered, suffocated or allowed to starve.

Giving them up for adoption would force abortionists to be honest about the operation, force the fact that they have been taking life and wouldn't allow for harvesting the fetus. Pro choicers have not shown any intent to entertain this honesty.

There's no real middle ground between the two views. At the moment, there's only two real options for a pregnancy.

Pro-choice IS the middle ground.