I don't see anything wrong with this, nor do I think this attempt is all that futile.

While the ultra-right wing of the anti-abortion lobby gets all of the attention, I'd wager that the majority of Americans, even ones who call themselves "pro-life", are much more like my parents--maybe disturbed by the notion of women getting abortions willy-nilly, but tolerant of it if the mothers' life is in danger or if she's a rape victim, and certainly not so deluded as to consider birth control and abortion the same thing. At least I hope that's the case.

So I hope what he's really doing is reaching moderates or fence-sitters while he *appears* to reach across the aisle.

Reaching across the aisle accomplishes two things: One, it shows that the pro-choice side is willing to listen to the concerns of the anti-choice side. No more "we weren't invited to the party" or "nobody is listening to us" whining.

Two, it will hopefully winnow out the hard-core unreachables. My bet is that they are a MUCH smaller group than they think they are. Once they realize this, they will either fold up their tents and go home or modify their positions somewhat. I'm sure the Obama administration is hoping for the latter, but not holding their breath. As am I.

If this fails, it will be because of the anti-choice people. He's calling them out and if they refuse to work on contraception or rights for pregnant women (not for the fetus), they will be outed for what they are (to a wider audience, anyway).

in these talks, because that ends up clogging the conversation into uselessness.

By focusing instead on contraceptive methods and education, Obama's really isolating the abstinence-only crowd (which, as you say, overlaps heavily with the anti-RvW crowd). Doing so pushes them farther into obsolescence and focuses the centrists on the things that will ACTUALLY bring down the number of abortions in the US. Abstinence-onlies tend to preach to the choir and will be left out in the cold if they can't use abortion as their megaphone and ticket into conversation.

It's basically a win-win for Obama. To the extent that the right accepts him (as if) then he's going to look like somebody who bridged an impossible divide. To the extent that the right rejects him, he's going to expose the right as ideological extremists.

Obama realizes that the religious right is absolutely incapable of compromise. The right will reject his overtures stridently and righteously. But all sane Americans support the use of birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Most Americans are tired with the abortion debate and believe that both sides have legitimate points. This is an area where Obama can get a lot of credit for staking out the middle ground. Meanwhile, the Republicans continue to paint themselves into a corner.

This may work, it may not work, but it is the right thing to do. If you look at data world wide, it is clear that the only way to reduce the total number of abortions (legal and illegal) is to improve sex-ed and increase access to contraception. This is the only workable pro-life AND pro-choice position.

Finding common ground between opposing factions is his MO. It's all over The Audacity of Hope. It's not just reaching across the aisle, its an effective problem solving technique. It's the reason I voted for him.

there is no common ground.....you either believe it's a woman's right to choose what happens to her body or it's organized religion and the government's right.

What do you mean?

If they believe that life and pregnancy begin at conception, then emergency contraception that prevents implantion might be considered a form of abortion -- and certainly might be considered as morally problematic as medical abortions (which are done *after* implantation).

I think that "life begins at conception" is not the right answer. But many think otherwise, and they are not taking immoral positions. Amidst a very complicated set of moral principles, they take positions that I do not agree with, but that does not mean that they necessarily are thoughtless or immoral.

Lumping together the fools who think that The Pill is like abortion and those who think that emerency contraception is/can be like abortion is disrepectful and makes you seems as close-minded as you would have them be viewed. No, emergency contraception is not medical abortion, but at times, morally, it might be the same thing. It doesn't help you to convince anyone, and makes it harder to move forward on areas of agreement, if you paint their positions as stupid or mindless when they often are not.

You -- and I -- want them to understand that we are not going to compromise on Choice. It is not unreasonable for them to insist that we acknowledge their belief that life begins at fertilization and that they will not support any programs that make it harder for fertilized eggs to be develop and be born. Emergency contraception *is* important, but other contraception is *more* important. If we can get them to support the latter -- itself a hugely important step -- why not acknowedge that their objection to the former has some basis?

The "two" (its more complicated than that, actually) sides have a lot in common.

At their base, both are (when assuming their best intentions) motivated by protecting what they see as the most vulnerable people -- the pro-choicers the women, the pro-lifers the babies/fetuses.

Both sides can agree that there should be as few abortions as possible and can work to that end.

The vast majority of pro-life people are not anti birth control, that really is a fucking loud fringe element. Making birth control affordable and safe is a very achievable goal for both sides.

The one thing they cannot agree on, but can be civil about, is that one side thinks a fetus is exactly the same thing as a fully developed human being and the other side does not. They can accept in good faith that their opponents are acting from a strongly held but scientifically unestablsihable belief. This also involves ignoring a fringe element that really does just want to control women's bodies. It is excellent to ignore them.

It's time that reasonable parties who disagree stopped letting the nut jobs define the discussion.