Saletan points out correctly that just because a slim majority of Americans call themselves pro-life, this does little to change the fact that the vast majority of Americans still think abortion should be legal, at least under certain circumstances.

But the fact is is that the abortion debate, (while it is "about" many things), only comes down to one yay-or-nay question which determines everything: is it legal? Can someone have an abortion? The moral, ethical, or what-have-you debates that lead people to support or oppose its legality are many, but this is a legal issue.

This is why I constantly get annoyed when some of my friends say, "Oh I'm pro choice, but I think people should be allowed to have abortions."

"Well," I usually reply, doing my best to hide my frustration, "if you think that people, including yourself, should be legally allowed to choose whether or not they have an abortion, then that means you're pro-choice. If you don't think people should be able to have that option available to them, then you are pro-life."

Because thats how making rules in our society plays out. I could care less what you would personally prescribe for yourself; thats your business. Its what you want to prescribe for me, and other people, that matters.

I'm fairly certain this shift in the polls is largely due to the Republican strategy of personalizing the abortion debate. The strategy has been to get individuals to think about how difficult or bad it would be to have an abortion, and then turn that personal opinion into a legal prescription for 300 million other people. When Sarah Palin was asked about her position on abortion, she said "I would council someone to choose life." Well whoop-de-doo Mrs. Palin, that tells us nothing of relevance. Politicians support or oppose laws, they don't council us personally. By using the language of the personal regarding abortion, Republicans have been able to subtly convince undecided people that the abortion debate is just one big solopsist excercise in which their own choice should be made legally mandatory for the whole country.

the last paragraph of your silly rant contradicts the first paragraph of your silly rant.

D+

I like your point, but I don't like the idea of calling a legal position "pro-life". I know it is a convenient way of calling things, but it is a loaded one. One can perfectly be pro-choice (a political and legal position, since politics is all about choices) and pro-life (a vague, moral a touchy-feely stance, since one can see the life of the mother more important than the life of the embryo, or see the life of the "baby" more important than the one of the mother). Life is a very broad word, with a very uncertain definition. For this reason, it should not get into a legal wording. An anti-abortion legal position should be called what it is: a forbidding, an interdiction. Legally speaking, it is a word with strict meaning. It is safer.

I actually identify myself pretty well with the position of Saletan. While I personally think that abortion is an unethical decision, I am a man who does not think that enforcing this ethical position by law is a good thing. I go further and I believe that hospitals and clinics should be obliged to have personnel able and willing to perform abortions on women who want it (or face having their public subsidies cut). These positions are not moral, they are politically motivated. I believe that politics should not always follow morality and that law is there to reinforce the society, even if it means going against ethics. Because the society is made of human beings who are not perfect and tend to make choices. Society rules (law, politics) should protect itself globally even if this means going contrary to individual ethics.

"Because thats how making rules in our society plays out. I could care less what you would personally prescribe for yourself; thats your business. Its what you want to prescribe for me, and other people, that matters."

This is the crux of the issue. Too many people in this country care way too much about what goes on in other people's bedrooms and in other people's uterus.

Incidentally, these are the same people that rail on about how evil welfare is, that mothers often need for support after the child is born. They don't want to help support the result of an unwanted pregnancy at all, so very few of them adopt children. Let's not forget that the majority of "pro-lifers" are also pro-death penalty and pro-torture.

Referring to them as "pro-birth" is far more suitable.

Alphast, I don't like the term pro-life either, but its the term that that group of people chooses to apply to itself and I will respect that. If pro-choicers had their way, we would call them anti-choice, and they would likewise call us pro-deathers. Just semantics for branding purposes. These aren't legal terms, but labels for people who wish to apply a legal decision to society.

Incidentally, these are the same people that rail on about how evil welfare is, that mothers often need for support after the child is born. They don't want to help support the result of an unwanted pregnancy at all, so very few of them adopt children.

i get it! part of the newspeak liberal talk. the responsible are the irresponsible and the irresponsible are the responsible. life is death and death is life.

No, it's just highlighting the irony of the fact that the same people who are pushing to force women who are accidentally pregnant to carry to term are largely those who:

- Were against promoting or providing contraception: Condoms, Morning after pill, etc..

- Are against funding for many social services.

- Seek to limit the pool of adoptive parents of unwanted children by declaring gays, lesbians and singles unfit to raise children

- Are against providing sex education to children who will soon be experimenting with sex (whether their parents approve or not) Leading to many girls who think that you can't get pregnant your first time, or if you wash with Coke afterwards or if the guy says you won't get pregnant he PROMISES.

None of this removes responsibility for sex or for pregnacy, but people who throw up roadblocks both to abortion and to all the other preventative measures are not helping the situation any.

Consider. I have nothing whatsoever against Bristol Palin... she was a teen who had sex and "got knocked up". However, the assumption has to be that in her family, they taught abstinence-only. So if your method is ineffective, why foist it on everyone else?

Actually, whether abortion is legal or not isn't the only issue. There are lots of other issues, such as whether people who oppose abortion should have to pay for abortions for poor women.

Beyond that, the culture around it matters a lot as well. It's legal to smoke and it's legal to wear a fur coat, but if you smoke or wear fur, people will look down on you. That has to have an impact on sales. Similarly, if abortion remained legal but 99% of people thought it was murder, abortion rates would plummet, clinics would close, doctors would refuse to perform abortions, etc.

I think this label exacerbates the two-dimension argument. Pro-life is necessarily pro-choice, for what is life but a series of choices? These non-contradictory labels only end up confusing people, and causing anxiety and stress that leads to people needing medications. This benefits the pharmaceutical industry that (surprise!) ALSO benefits from the sale of contraceptives as well as Viagra and it's ilk, so you could say that, in the abortion "debate," the big winners are lawyers and pharmaceutical companies. Yay.

I oppose killing, and not just human life. But I won't think twice about killing mosquitoes, wasps, nor in immediate self-defense. I draw the line well before pre-emptive war. I think the abortion of any baby is a loss to the entire human family; nevertheless, I believe the people responsible for that choice are the parents--and where the father may abdicate his responsibility, the mother cannot, thus the choice is often left up to her. I believe that, given historical context, it is wiser for the state to allow abortions to be performed by medical personnel in an effort to preserve the mother's life as well as her ability to produce children in the future. The moral and spiritual consequences are something that she'll have to live with for the rest of her life. That seems to me enough punishment.

That said, I am supportive of the "Choose Adoption" movement. Adoption seems, on its face, to be able to satisfy the "I don't want this child (for whatever reason)" at the same time as the "Every life is precious" arguments, as well as solving for infertile couples who are anxiously waiting for a lucky break.

How about that. I've tried highlighting that the most of the people who are morally oppossed to enhanced interrogation techniques are completely OK with abortion on demand. Seems completely out of whack on a moral level. A legal level is different.

If Bristol practiced coitus interuptus, condoms, pills, she still could have gotten "knocked up" so I guess we have to stop foisting those on everyone as well? The only one of those options that is absolutely guaranteed to not result in pregnancy or STDs is abstinence. No method works if it's not practiced as required, so what's your postion there?

My point is that although those techniques (condoms, pills etc..) have margins of error.. ALL of the margins of error are statistically smaller than saying "Hey. Teen with raging hormones. Don't have sex." and then crossing your fingers.

I don't know why it's so difficult for people to see that abstinence only is a naive, silly concept. Would we be pushing abstinence only for the following?

- Driving Cars. (There are hundreds of thousands of in-car fatalities every year, so instead of driving classes, just tell your teens to never drive or get in a car. It's the only surefire way!)

- Swimming - Lots of people drown every year. Don't teach people to swim. Teach them to stay away from water at all costs. Don't wear lifejackets when boating. People drown even when they're wearing them sometimes... so it's better to not have them.

- Cooking - Stoves can be hot. They cause serious burns and can even set houses on fire! Don't teach your kids how to cook. Teach them to order in. Definitely don't teach them about potholders.

- Sports - Emergency rooms across the country are flooded with sports injuries. It's better to shield your kids from sports. And don't buy them any of that fancy protective equipment... it's just going to encourage them to play more. And OBVIOUSLY, the fact that some players get hurt despite their equipment proves that it's safer to play without equipment.

What's the argument exactly?

I think the abortion of any baby is a loss to the entire human family; nevertheless, I believe the people responsible for that choice are the parents--and where the father may abdicate his responsibility, the mother cannot, thus the choice is often left up to her. I believe that, given historical context, it is wiser for the state to allow abortions to be performed by medical personnel in an effort to preserve the mother's life as well as her ability to produce children in the future.

Ummm . . . I have a question. Do you consider this to be the "pro-choice" position? Because no one who opposes abortion on demand has a problem with abortion when it is necessary to protect the life of the mother, or to prevent serious physical harm to the mother.

What we oppose is the idea that it should be legal to kill a baby, born or otherwise, simply because you don't want him around. You know, the other 96% of abortions that are performed in america.

You've got a very good point True...

And I think that it underscores the point of the article, namely that the two clean camps of Anti-Abortion and Pro-Choice (or whatever the hell people choose to call them) are anything but clean.

Many people who support abortions early on in the pregnancy are aghast at late term abortions. Some are just as aghast if four cells are destroyed as they are if they were watching a newborn being bashed in the skull. The point is that nobody has a corner on the decision of when viable, independent life begins.

Some might say it starts at conception... but would look puzzled if someone suggested that all pregnant women who miscarry at a few days to weeks should have funerals. Most people (religious or not) do not hold funeral services for early term (just a few cells) miscarriages... although if you considered their stances on the beginning of life, this would seem incongruous.

Also... just to nitpick... the 4% of legitimate abortions that you've outlined... does that include victims of rape or incest... does it include situations where the mothers are at risk for severe parental or spousal abuse as a result of their pregnancies? (lots of fathers beat their pregnant daughters mercilessly, as do male partners who weren't planning on kids) Not to mention schools that kick pregnant teens out, keeping them from even finishing high school so that they can provide for their kids... etc. Just curious...

Alphast:

I like your point, but I don't like the idea of calling a legal position "pro-life". I know it is a convenient way of calling things, but it is a loaded one. One can perfectly be pro-choice (a political and legal position, since politics is all about choices) and pro-life (a vague, moral a touchy-feely stance, since one can see the life of the mother more important than the life of the embryo, or see the life of the "baby" more important than the one of the mother). Life is a very broad word, with a very uncertain definition. For this reason, it should not get into a legal wording. An anti-abortion legal position should be called what it is: a forbidding, an interdiction. Legally speaking, it is a word with strict meaning. It is safer.

You're hilarious. 'Life" is a vague, loaded, touchy-feely term and "choice" isn't?

Do you favor my having the "choice" of whether to own an AK-47, or whether to shoot my neighbor with it?

Do you favor my having the "choice" of whether to pay taxes?

Do you favor my having the "choice" of how fast to drive down Main Street and whether to stop at red lights?

Do you favor my having the "choice" of whether to send my children to public schools or have the government use the money allotted for their education to pay their tuition at private schools?

If you answer no to any of those questions, you are no more "pro-choice" than anyone who supports the death penalty or the Iraq war is "pro-life". You favor "choice" in one narrow context just like they favor "life" in one narrow context. If you deny the validity of one term by looking outside that narrow context, you must be willing to do the same with the other.

They're both vague, touchy-feely euphemisms meant to restrict the points of view one is capable of expressing in the common language in which the debate is framed.