i'd just like to do a poll on people's opinions of how to best solve the issue of unplanned pregnancy when a woman can't afford the child. 1) pro-choicers say that if a woman can't afford a child, she should legally be able to abort, and that it's not fair to force her to have a child she can't support. 2) feminists for life say that if a woman can't financially support the child, yet would otherwise want to have the baby, she's effectively being forced to abort, which isn't pro-choice at all. they propose giving women more options, so that finance shouldn't be an issue when deciding whether or not to have an abortion. i can see the merits in both these arguments, but i was just wondering what other people thought is the best solution? i'm not talking about whether or not you want to pay taxes towards helping pregnant women (although i dont think anyone can truly call themselves pro-choice if they dont) just which would be best FOR THE WOMAN. is it pro-woman to leave a woman with so few options that she has to abort a child she wants to keep just because of lack of finances? FRO: i actually agree, but whenever i give the 'abstinence is the best form of contraception' talk people get mad at me :( The Mrs- i know there will be consequences for society/taxpayers, but i'm not asking about the logistics of how it'd be done. i just want to know what would be best for the woman in question.