Marysia, I wonder at your defeatism. What would you have? Do you think hearts can be changed in a legal climate that fails to recognize the humanity of the unborn? Do you think you can change a culture without affecting the laws of that culture? Could you imagine a nation in which the Civil War had never been fought and slavery remained legal on the books coming around to a universal rejection of the practice of slavery? For your information, Feminists for Life and the parent organization of this blog have both been active in promoting "generous, comprehensive funding" for some of those programs. Moreover, I don't think you should underestimate the charitable nature of ordinary Americans, or the capacity of women to find joy in even the most ill-timed pregnancy. Regarding your second comment, biologically speaking, yes, procreation is the purpose of sex. That is to say, sex is an evolutionary response to the reproductive problem of genetic variability. The secondary effect of bonding also contributes to species survival in some species by providing protection for mother and infant during a vulnerable time, but it is by no means universal among the animals. I hope you don't have a problem with theology informing legislation, because it is that, and not biology, that defends both the unitive and procreative aspects of sex. The examples you have chosen to illustrate your argument indicate to me that you have a false impression of theology of the body. Please search and read up on that term (I suggest the Humana Vitae encyclical for starters) before you again allege that pro-lifers are only interested in procreation. Ultimately, your argument resorts to a straw man. Few pro- lifers, including those who, like myself, refrain for religious reasons, object to the legality of genuine contraception or the freedom of conscience for others to choose for themselves in that regard. Contraception is not at issue here, despite your attempt to tie it in with abortion. Contraception seeks to prevent the creation of new life; abortion to end that life after it has begun. That's a huge ethical difference. That said, the decision to engage in sex cannot be made in a moral vacuum. The possibility of conception cannot be ignored, no matter how convenient it would be to pretend it can't happen. And once a baby has been created, wishful thinking and cries of "but I'm a nice person!" cannot alter the enormity of its deliberate destruction. Many women have learned this too late, to their sorrow. That is why there are so many postabortion ministries like Project Rachel and Ramah and advocacy groups like Women Exploited By Abortion out there.