Response to Richard S. on the meaning of "pro-life"

Richard's analysis on the complexity of a "pro-life" position makes a lot of sense to me - because it grapples seriously with some of the very hard pratical questions.  I am attracted to this line: "Nevertheless, we think that, at least for now, the best way to eliminate abortion is not to threaten women but to empower them, not to reduce their choices but to increase them" - but I am also struggling with some of its implications. 

I agree that we need to empower women and increase their choices, but am also concerned that a woman's own definition of freedom, choice and power is often permeated and shaped by crushing cultural pressures that make it difficult to be open to life.  Should / can the law play any role in shaping or turning around those cultural pressures?  Perhaps it comes down to that really hard question, of whether we see law as a teacher of virtue, setting out an ideal; or as a tool for prudently managing and controlling socially destructive or bad behavior. 

A comparative analysis also strikes me as very helpful.  (Others who are deeper into the scholarship can guide me, I know that Mary Ann Glendon's Abortion and Divorce in Western Law is a good place to start).  Perhaps comparative work might also shed some light on these hard questions about the nature of law.

Amy