One of the reasons that the abortion debate in the United States has historically been vehement, ugly, and impossible to resolve is that people on both sides of the issue have refused to acknowledge that there are compelling arguments favoring both the traditional pro-choice and pro-life positions. Unfortunately, as the American public has grown increasingly polarized about the topic of abortions, so have American politicians. The problem with a politician taking an absolute pro-choice or pro-life stance is that such a position shows a tremendous amount of disrespect and lack of empathy for those Americans who hold opposing views. Therefore, the new administration's policy should not be based on traditional notions of pro-choice or pro-life policies, but reflect a more modern and inclusive position; a pro-life stance that recognizes that societal changes, not legal ones, will be what changes the face of the abortion debate.
             The fact is that the world has changed dramatically since the decision in Roe v. Wade.1 The trimester system outlined by the Roe justices is no longer scientifically justifiable, because scientific advances mean that a second-trimester fetus has a significant possibility of living outside of the womb. In addition, there is some evidence to suggest that first-trimester embryos may soon have the possibility of living in a donor womb. These advances are of tremendous importance, because the court in Roe v. Wade had to balance two very compelling interests: a woman's right to physical autonomy versus the right of an unborn child to life. The trimester system attempted to establish fetal viability, and limited a woman's right to an abortion in the third trimester, during which a fetus was considered viable. However, scientific advances have dramatically reduced the age of fetal viability, so that it is possible for most mid-second-trimester pregnancies to be considered viable. According to th...