This article discusses the abortion debate and proposes an alternative method as to how best deal with this volatile issue.

Abortion is a touchy issue. On the one side there are pro-life advocates decrying the murder of the innocent. On the other there are those who are pro-choice, prioritizing the women’s right to that which she deems appropriate with her own body. What an interesting and perplexing dilemma this would be for anyone who would try to ascertain which position is more correct. It does appear, though, that advocates within each camp fail to acknowledge the valid points of those in the other. Very few people take the middle ground on this issue, which serves to account for the reason that supporters of one position are all but deaf to the more valid points of the other.
Some of the tenets of the Pro-Life position are that life begins at conception, adoption is preferable to abortion, abstinence is the best preventative for unwanted pregnancies, and that having an abortion can psychologically scar a woman. These points appear to be valid, particularly when each statement is weighted according to its own merit. When placed together, though, they constitute a political agenda which does not always take the best interests of the pregnant woman into account.
The tenets of the Pro-Choice position are the right for a woman to do as she chooses with her body, contraception is the most practical preventative for an unwanted pregnancy, carrying an unwanted child to term could psychologically damage the child after it is born, life begins sometime after conception, and that adoption should not be the only option. Taken separately, each statement appears to be valid when weighted according to its merit. However, when put together, they constitute a political agenda that may fail to account for the best interests of society.
The problem with each position is that one appears to lack what the other has in terms of effectively resolving the issue. Specifically, the Pro-Life position addresses the problem of unwanted pregnancies before-the-fact while the Pro-Choice position addresses it after-the-fact. Neither position has been all that effective in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies.
This is unfortunate because an unwanted pregnancy is a crisis. Any woman in a position where abortion is even an issue is in a very difficult place. She and other interested parties may have little use for a philosophical debate on the merits of adoption versus my body-my choice. They are more concerned about arriving at the most optimal outcome. Since a crisis intervention model tends to be more outcome oriented, it appears to constitute a more logical approach, and it is best conducted by one who is professionally trained to deal with it. Laypeople and politicians do not conduct open heart surgery or practice law unless they are qualified to do so. Therefore, it is not recommended that one counsel pregnant women unless s/he is qualified to do so.
There is a place for political advocacy in relation to the abortion issue. However, it is in working together that each camp is most likely to garner the most favorable results: a reduction in unwanted pregnancies, fewer women terminating their pregnancies, and more practical approaches towards educating young people about sex. Rather than debate the issues of when life begins, the merits of abstinence or whether abortions should be funded by health care providers, political advocates on both sides would do better by working together on proposing programs that will better enable women to manage the crisis of an unwanted pregnancy. They would do better by advocating programs that ensure more optimal outcomes than those that are currently extant.