I think the pro-life movement should focus on making childbirth easier to deal with, both emotionally, economically, and physically,

nice idea, now lets take a closer look.

-emotionally:
people usually are happy whit a baby. they wont need extra emotional care.
those that are not happy whit a baby would rather have the abortion i think. why would we spend more money on these peoples emotions for probably years. if we can get rid of the bad emotions, by 1 time paying for a abortion.

-economically:
(depending on the amount.) people who would not take a child could choose to get a child to get financially better then how they are whitout child.
but then we end up whit parents who do not love their child and only finds it annoying. is that what they want?

-physically:
beside drugging the mother nothing can really be done about the pain.
and how well are drugs for the baby of a pregnant woman?

partydevil, yes just not having the kid one can avoid these issues and should be allowed to be considered. Though it's not quite that cut and dry.

-emotionally:
people usually are happy whit a baby. they wont need extra emotional care.
those that are not happy whit a baby would rather have the abortion i think. why would we spend more money on these peoples emotions for probably years. if we can get rid of the bad emotions, by 1 time paying for a abortion.

Even in situations where the child is wanted there is still such a thing as Postpartum depression.

-economically:
(depending on the amount.) people who would not take a child could choose to get a child to get financially better then how they are whitout child.
but then we end up whit parents who do not love their child and only finds it annoying. is that what they want?

Many pro-life advocates have also advocated for not providing financial support to the mother. For example how the GOP is often on the pro-life side yet tries to pull things like this.
GOP Poised To Cut Food Aid For Pregnant Women, Children

-physically:
beside drugging the mother nothing can really be done about the pain.
and how well are drugs for the baby of a pregnant woman?

There is often physical recovery required after giving birth.

Why is it okay for one person to tell another person, based on their own culture, religious values and upbringing, that doing something is wrong? It's like someone traveling to Africa and telling some villagers that they shouldn't balance baskets on their heads and should carry it the way they do. I've always felt that it's none of my business if someone wants to have an abortion. Why should it matter if it conflicts with my religious or social views. Isn't forcing others to believe what you want brainwashing?

Definition of BRAINWASHING
1
: a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas
2
: persuasion by propaganda or salesmanship

"Just looking for a little consistency here in these anti-abortion arguments. See the really hardcore people will tell you life begins at fertilization. Fertilization, when the sperm fertilizes the egg... But even after the egg is fertilized, it's still six or seven days before it reaches the uterus and pregnancy begins, and not every egg makes it that far. Eighty percent of a woman's fertilized eggs are rinsed and flushed out of her body once a month during those delightful few days she has. They wind up on sanitary napkins, and yet they are fertilized eggs. So basically what these anti-abortion people are telling us is that any woman who's had more than more than one period is a serial killer! Consistency." - George Carlin

George Carlin on the sanctity of life

We've tried using that argument before, but it is largely ignored by the criers for anti-abortion.

I do agree that it's something to be encouraged, though I think it should be added that not all bad hand situations would have the best result of carrying the child to term.

That's fair, and like I said it's always circumstancial, so there's no cut and dry for everything.

It's not really taking from both sides. That is basically (and well put) what pro-choice advocates.

In a way, I suppose. I guess what I was getting at was that pro-life should mean more than just potential personhood coming to term by any means necessary, but rather to make the preferred option easier.

those that are not happy whit a baby would rather have the abortion i think. why would we spend more money on these peoples emotions for probably years. if we can get rid of the bad emotions, by 1 time paying for a abortion.

I meant more along the lines of during and after the pregnancy by making adoption easier and more convenient. Child support is important as well, for people that want their child but cannot afford it.

(depending on the amount.) people who would not take a child could choose to get a child to get financially better then how they are whitout child.
but then we end up whit parents who do not love their child and only finds it annoying. is that what they want?

That's why there are thing like food stamps and WIC cards for childcare, making sure that you're spending the money on food and not making yourself better off. We might want to make those things more readily available for those who need it. But I agree that we don't want to make it more profitable financially to give birth, or we'll have an even greater population issue than we already have.

beside drugging the mother nothing can really be done about the pain.
and how well are drugs for the baby of a pregnant woman?

I meant more investing into hospital care, not doping her up.

You seem like you're trying to reword what I'm saying by coming up with a scenario and then showing why it's bad, when I hadn't provided the scenario to begin with.

"Just looking for a little consistency here in these anti-abortion arguments. See the really hardcore people will tell you life begins at fertilization. Fertilization, when the sperm fertilizes the egg... But even after the egg is fertilized, it's still six or seven days before it reaches the uterus and pregnancy begins, and not every egg makes it that far. Eighty percent of a woman's fertilized eggs are rinsed and flushed out of her body once a month during those delightful few days she has. They wind up on sanitary napkins, and yet they are fertilized eggs. So basically what these anti-abortion people are telling us is that any woman who's had more than more than one period is a serial killer! Consistency." - George Carlin

Playing crazy anti-abortion advocate, having a period is natural, while abortion is an intervention in the natural process of pregnancy.
I think that argument should only outline that pro-lifers need to specify why abortion specifically is wrong. It shouldn't try to make connections between two things just to earn political points, even if it is rather clever.

Anyone that thinks abortion is wrong should make the other options easier, not make abortion harder. A childish high school example: if you want to date someone, you don't invalidate all their other options so they are forced to choose you. You validate yourself so they want to choose you. If you want a woman to choose natural birth, validate natural birth. Realize that the woman carrying the fetus has the final say, and if we change that legally, we are hurting our American rights.

Playing crazy anti-abortion advocate, having a period is natural, while abortion is an intervention in the natural process of pregnancy.
I think that argument should only outline that pro-lifers need to specify why abortion specifically is wrong. It shouldn't try to make connections between two things just to earn political points, even if it is rather clever.

Like Carlin said "I'd like to see a little consistency". Then by that logic, any intervention in a natural process is wrong. Cesarean sections are wrong because they're an intervention in a natural process. So are sedatives and drugs for mental health. Schizophrenia is a natural process. Heck, condoms might be wrong as well since they interfere with the natural process of insemination and therefore pregnancy.

Like Carlin said "I'd like to see a little consistency". Then by that logic, any intervention in a natural process is wrong. Cesarean sections are wrong because they're an intervention in a natural process. So are sedatives and drugs for mental health. Schizophrenia is a natural process. Heck, condoms might be wrong as well since they interfere with the natural process of insemination and therefore pregnancy.

That I think is a little closer to the point. I think the pro-lifers that demonize abortion for religious reasons probably oppose condoms as well, although some don't. People that want fewer unintended pregnancies, as we all should, will want to encourage sex education, and the use of condoms and birth control when there is no intent to impregnate. So in some sense I would say there is a consistency (stopping the potential person from becoming a person is the objection), just not a very logical one in that regard.
Btw, I wasn't saying your argument was invalid, only that there was a distinction in play with respect to abortion vs having a period, which might account for why people can rationalize the argument away.

Basically what George Carlin had said "If you're preborn you're fine, if you're preschool you're ****ed."

(Needless to say language.)
George Carlin: Pro Life, Abortion, And The Sanctity Of Life

Even in situations where the child is wanted there is still such a thing as Postpartum depression.

people are already being helped whit that right? atleast they are in my country.
thats why i wrote "extra emotional care"

Many pro-life advocates have also advocated for not providing financial support to the mother.

you sure this is pro-life? sound allot like anti-life to me. do they want people to have a bad life or what?

There is often physical recovery required after giving birth.

and there are programs that help them to get into shape again. it's up to them to join 1 after giving birth. by the national health care (would be obama-care for you) a few of these trainings are paid for.

making adoption easier and more convenient

adoption centers and foster homes are world wide already working above there capacity. these kids already do not get the love and care that they need and deserve.
putting more kids in that situation would only make it worse.

Child support is important as well, for people that want their child but cannot afford it.

but it shouldn't be that high that people can exploit it. (this fals more in the economically part not the emotionally part. (same for the adoption reason tho. that also wasn't about emotional care))

That's why there are thing like food stamps and WIC cards for childcare,

i dunno what WIC cards are.
but i do know that childs need more then food and clouts. 

I meant more investing into hospital care, not doping her up.

sure invest in hospital care. but what care? hospital care is very wide.
how do you see this for you? how do you take physically better  care of a pregnant woman?

You seem like you're trying to reword what I'm saying by coming up with a scenario and then showing why it's bad, when I hadn't provided the scenario to begin with.

i thought what i quoted was wroted down kinda like how nostradamus wrote down his prediction. it sounds nice but it has no real meaning.
so i went to take a closer look and figure out how we could improof these points. then by useing senarios i found out that it does work.

now if you want to explain to me how you see this idea of yours happening in real life. then i might just turn around and support it. but by useing my own logic i dont see it working.

i dunno what WIC cards are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIC