Saletan asks:

Is it dishonest to be morally pro-life but legally pro-choice?

No Will, it isn't. It's merely recognizing that imposing one's own views on others is not a desirable activity. Even if I had the right plumbing for it, I would never have an abortion. But I don't believe criminalizing abortion will do anything but drive the practice underground in the proverbial backalleys once again. If the goal is to actually reduce the number of abortions performed to as low as possible, then the way to achieve that is not through criminalization, but through education.

Likewise, I have no desire to smoke marijuana, but I recognize that our "war on drugs" has done virtually nothing to stem its use among people who want to.

Your analogy is flawed. Smoking marijuana does not kill someone else. A pro-life person believes that abortion is the killing of a human life, just as if you are killing a newborn baby. I assume you are ok with laws against the killing of newborn babies? There is no good analogy for the abortion issue, that is why it will never be resolved.

And what YOU are doing, r2d2, is putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "neener neener, i can't hear you," which is pretty much the way this whole "national debate" has gone for the last decade. Obama would like to change that, but apparently your current posture suits you just fine.

I can't believe you "pro-life" idiots out there. Why in the hell would you let the government decide what a woman can do with her body. It is not up to the the politicians to make that choice. The government is in our lives enough. And, what is the difference in killing a baby through an abortion and killing one through bombs like Iraq. And don't tell me it was war. Killing is killing. You can't be against one and for the other. Bunch of hipocrits. Running around with your signs, stop murder, stop killing babies but on the other hand applauding the Bush regime in killing over 90 thousand Iraquis with his shock and awe. how many of them do you think were pregnant . . . or don't you care.

wrapper:

I can't believe you "pro-life" idiots out there. Why in the hell would you let the government decide what a woman can do with her body. It is not up to the the politicians to make that choice. The government is in our lives enough. And, what is the difference in killing a baby through an abortion and killing one through bombs like Iraq. And don't tell me it was war. Killing is killing. You can't be against one and for the other. Bunch of hipocrits. Running around with your signs, stop murder, stop killing babies but on the other hand applauding the Bush regime in killing over 90 thousand Iraquis with his shock and awe. how many of them do you think were pregnant . . . or don't you care.

It's nice to know that there's at least one person who could read Saletan's article and its exhortation to at least listen to the other side, and completely ignore it! Well done wrapper! Seen as how you are completely enraptured with your own point of view, and unwilling to even entertain those of others, your name is particularly apt.

Eihard,

So shall I put you down as "I'll have whatever she isn't having?"

I, for one, fully support Einhard's choice to not get an abortion.

rpg3456:

Your analogy is flawed.

No analogy is perfect.

I don't expect the abortion issue to be ever be "resolved" precisely because there is a difference of opinion as to when a new human life begins. Is it conception? Implanation? Some point during the 2nd or 3rd trimester? Birth? Until the day comes when we have a national consensus as when the exact moment a new human life comes into existence, the abortion debate rages on.

The majority of Americans are not single issue voters, nor are they subscribers to either of the most extreme views. Saletin's article was a recognition of the simple that fact many Americans are personally opposed to abortion even though they don't favor making the practice illegal under all circumstances. Most Americans, whether they call themselves pro-choice or pro-life, fall into the mushy middle. The minorities are those who favor either a total ban, including cases of rape, incest or when the mother's health is in jeopardy or that abortion should be legal under all circumstances for any reason, even up the last moments before birth.

I'd love to us come to a consensus where abortion is extremely rare. But we need both a cultural and an educational shift to reach that point. Instead of focusing on overturning Roe v. Wade, however, I think the best way to reach that goal is to put those efforts into teaching the Levi Johnstons of America to put a condom on.

I agree GreatBear.

I think that the most salient point of this editorial is the fact that we unnecessarily present false choices to the world and then exhort them to take sides. To further muddy those choices, we tell them that their choices are bundled, like cable tv. If you're for lower taxes, we'll sign you up for anti-abortion and no gays. If you're for gays, then we'll sign you up for profligate spending, lack of support for the military and abortion.

I refuse to believe that the people in this country change their basic values as much as polls say. Binary labels: Pro-Choice/Pro-Life Pro Gay Rights/Anti Gay Rights... these are misleading because of the vast spectrum between them.

I am neither Democrat nor Republican but I find myself sitting on the pointy end of the wedge in a lot of issues.

I really don't like the idea of abortion, but I shudder at the idea that the government should make those choices. Especially since government is about arbitrary lines and cutoffs (which make sense practically in many situations). so on this i'm Anti-abortion/Pro Choice?

I don't trust our criminal justice system to determine guilt beyond enough doubt to warrant their use of the death penalty. This doesn't mean that I don't think that the world would be better off without some heinous mistakes of humanity. so i'm Pro-Vengance/Anti Death penalty?

As long as our two party system continues to drag constituents along by the nose... each using polls to claim as their own the same groups of people asked different questions at different times, we will continue to have this non-debate that was never designed to really go anywhere.

Much of what we consider political "hypocrisy" is really just the idea of nuanced position. Unfortunately, we like to grab onto any seeming dissonance between ideas and harp on the one that suits the argument of the moment.

Wait. Where's the box to check for non-profligate spending? I swear it was here sometime ago.

It was eliminated in an uncharacteristically bipartisan vote :-)

Saying you disapprove of abortion and wouldn't have one yourself (if you were in a position to do so) doesn't make you Pro-Life. You don't have the perspective of Pro-Lifers at all. If you believe that restricting abortion is an unwarranted interference in the rights of those who decide to have one, you are Pro-Choice. If you believe that the rights of two persons are involved and that the government is justified in stepping in to protect the rights of one of them, just as it does whe one adult attempts to kill another, you are Pro-Life.

I'm not advocating either of the above viewpoints, just pointing out that they are more different from each other than you are allowing. You are framing the discussion with an assumption that the second position doesn't exist or is not legitimate, that the only dispute involved is between those who wish to control women and those who don't - just as many Pro-Lifers frame the debate as being between those who want babies to live and those who don't care whether babies live or die.

Obama does the same thing on most every issue and that's why his claims of post-partisanship are so empty. He's mastered the technique of giving a shout-out to the opposition while pretending the viewpoint they actually take doesn't exist and needn't be taken into consideration.

Such truth Bruce...

The terms themselves are misleading because of the many different viewpoints on abortion... is it life? is it not? Does it matter? Is it secular? Is it religious?

Often since the extremists have the most interesting (read: news friendly) viewpoints, people mistakenly begin to believe that they are the only viewpoints in question. I would argue that

Pro-Life is not the same as Anti-Abortion

Pro-Choice is not the same as Pro-Abortion.

And that's just for starters. We need to get past the reactionary labeling of everything as black and white, blue and red, right and wrong, and realize that we must acknowledge who the various players really are before trying to solve the debate. There are more voices than we hear.

I find both terms to be inaccurate and too restrictive. They're just labels and ultimately, mean whatever the person using them wants them to mean. I reject both of them.

TheyCallMeBruce:

Saying you disapprove of abortion and wouldn't have one yourself (if you were in a position to do so) doesn't make you Pro-Life. You don't have the perspective of Pro-Lifers at all. If you believe that restricting abortion is an unwarranted interference in the rights of those who decide to have one, you are Pro-Choice. If you believe that the rights of two persons are involved and that the government is justified in stepping in to protect the rights of one of them, just as it does whe one adult attempts to kill another, you are Pro-Life.

I'm not advocating either of the above viewpoints, just pointing out that they are more different from each other than you are allowing. You are framing the discussion with an assumption that the second position doesn't exist or is not legitimate, that the only dispute involved is between those who wish to control women and those who don't - just as many Pro-Lifers frame the debate as being between those who want babies to live and those who don't care whether babies live or die.

Obama does the same thing on most every issue and that's why his claims of post-partisanship are so empty. He's mastered the technique of giving a shout-out to the opposition while pretending the viewpoint they actually take doesn't exist and needn't be taken into consideration.

Right on the money! The pro-life view is not about government forcing you not to choose so they can control women. They see the unborn as another human with rights. For example when a husband murders his wife should we defend his right to choose to kill her? Is the government violating his constitutional right to kill his wife? The pro-life argument would say "what about the woman's rights?" The pro-choice side would dismiss it out of hand and say women don't have rights only men do.

Sound ridiculous? Why? Many cultures don't recognize the rights of women today. Ours didn't recognize women rights for a while. Same is true for African Americans. To pro-lifers saying a fetus doen't have rights is like saying women don't have rights to a feminist. But fetuses are not persons yet- so they dont have rights the mantra goes. Personhood is a poor standard by which to measure ones rights as it can be granted and revoked at will- just ask the Africans, Jews, Poles, Native Americans, and homosexuals.