I was floored by Douthat's response to Kmiec, especially by the arrogance it took to call him an idiot with such a convoluted, faux-academic tone.

Knowing nothing about Douthat's views, I can only say that he sounds like the sort of pro-life hardliner that sees no other issue as important. The reason that Roe has not been struck down is simple; someone who wants to criminalize an activity that half the population does not see as criminal has a tough road to hoe. I don't know anyone who loves abortions, or who wants there to be more of them. But hawks like Douthat think nothing is acceptable short of an outright ban, which means that when his allies are in the White House, noting gets done to reduce the need for abortions.

Just because Obama is staunchly pro-choice does not mean that he has nothing to offer Catholics on the issue. On a personal note, I live in a strongly Catholic European country, where abortion on-demand is legal. Catholic groups do not wring their hands trying to get clinics shut down, or to demonize abortion practitioners. They merely offer help and alternatives to those finding themselves in unwanted pregnancies, as well as education on how to avoid them. It's a pragmatic approach that I believe most pro-lifers in America are starting to see as preferable to another 30 yars of deadlock because of their hardline position.

This is also to say nothing of the constant war for the Supreme Court, whose debate should center around issues rather than the future of Roe. There are other, more pressing concerns, such as the balance of powers and the dillema of privacy vs. security in the war on terrorism.

If there were a war going on that had cost 40 million+ lives over the span of a decade or two... well, it would seem an important issue. Perhaps the only issue. Until it were resolved, there would be victory gardens, discussions of pulling out, all sorts of protests, etc. The economy would be a distant echo of an issue, except as it was an element in industrial mobilization. Taxes wouldn't be balanced against bodybags.

Try this one on for size and see if it helps you understand some of those single issue voters.

Yawn. See, the problem is that most of the world doesn't see the 40 million clumps of tissue as "lives." That's the precise disagreement, so framing it in those terms does nothing to advance your argument.

The precision of the disagreement shouldn't make it impossible for pro-abortion people to stand in the shoes of pro-life people and see why they take the issue so seriously.

BenK, I can absolutely see why hard-line pro-lifers take this issue so seriously. Indeed, I would doubt the sincerity of anyone who professed to believe that fertilized eggs are fully realized human beings but did not make this their number one issue. You put it perfectly--if you truly believe that 40 million people are killed annually, you better do something about it.

But here's the thing (two things, actually): 1) Decades of attacking the legality of Roe v. Wade hasn't solved your dilemma and 2) You are missing a huge opportunity here by refusing to see the vast, vast majority of pro-choicers who see abortion as a tragedy, albeit not murder. If your end goal is to stop all abortions from happening, and your current strategy isn't working, why not try attacking the problem from another direction (one with much more popular support): let's do everything we can to stop unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Let's focus on practical realities rather than rhetoric.

He did not call him an idiot, he called him a "useful idiot", which is to say more of a stooge. It implies foolishness, not lack of mental capacity. Here's a primer on the term:
<link>

Kmiec argues again and again that Obama is a better pro-life candidate. He is not even referring to "pro-life" in the way democrats try to co-opt the term, i.e. caring for the poor, providing healthcare, etc, he is referring to abortion. Obama is staunchly pro-choice. Not something he should be ashamed of, but I think Douthat is right that Kmiec's mental gymnastics is silly.

The reason Roe has not been struck down is NOT that the majority of people believe it should be legal (although a majority do). I can find you tons of results where popular legislation has been overturned by courts. Most recently, a ballot initiative was passed in California to "overrule" the court's decision on gay marriage. Judges don't look at polls.

When discussing Roe, most people base their opinions on the policy they want, not the constitution, which is telling. You don't find a lot of pro-lifers saying "yeah, it's horrible, but it's right there in the constitution. Guess we need an amendment". In fact, I can find lot's of pro-choicers that think it was decided wrongly. They think abortion has constitutional protections, but not in the tortured "privacy" argument.

A majority of people feel abortion should be legal. But a majority also believes it should be regulated (how late you can get the abortion, how it takes place, under what circumstances, etc.). Roe restricts what types of regulation can take place. In Douthat's view, it limits it in a way that prevents a compromise that would satisfy conservatives, which is not necessarily an outright ban.

The abortion debate often boils down to people who want to protect zygotes against people who want an abortion on demand for any reason up to delivery. Most people are in the middle.

As for the catholic country you live in, which is it?
<link>
According to this link, it looks like most European countries have MORE restrictive abortion laws, including Catholic nations Italy, Ireland, and France (especially Ireland).

Very sensible statements; I understand. Some catholics have trouble with this issue because they have more broad ranging beliefs that are even more difficult to communicate than the simple issue of life of a not yet born baby. these feed into values of community and family, life, the future, etc. There is something of a whole cloth that is difficult to unravel. Yet.

One option that I personally favor is to... make fathers responsible for unborn children. This one change, more than anything else, could remove many issues of 'equality' and sexism/gender issues from the table. Men should have a say in any abortion-decision, if one is legal, and cojoined obligations to the child (and the mother). Instead of the default being to allow men to abandon the child and then allow women to abandon the child to equalize the matter, neither should be allowed to abandon the unborn child.

With gender equality out of the way, the underlying issue of 'real life' of the unborn can be discussed in a less charged atmosphere.

BenK, I think this is an interesting approach. I definitely agree that doing more to require fathers to be responsible for their children would help a lot--if fewer women felt that they were abandoned to raise a child on their own with no support, I think there would be fewer abortions.

The only wrinkle I'd raise is that I don't think men should be given veto power over a women's choice (either way--men shouldn't be able to force women to have an abortion or to go through a pregnancy [again, assuming we're leaving the legality of abortion to the side for now]).

"See, the problem is that most of the world doesn't see the 40 million clumps of tissue as "lives."

Well I think you are wrong there. Take Biden, for instance, saying he believes "life begins at conception" even though he supports choice. I'd wager at least 1/3 of pro-choice people see it that way. And even you must admit that, at some point before birth the fetus does become a person. I've been pregnant twice. I've felt them kick, sneeze and roll over. I've seen the ultrasounds, heard the heartbeat, etc. That's not just a clump of cells doing all that, that's a BABY! And even the original Roe decision acknowledged this fact, and said the State did have some interest in protecting the baby. And yes, I oppose abortion because BABIES DIE from abortion. I can't pretend they don't, and I can't just shrug like Biden and say "gee, I don't want to force my opinion on someone else." To me that's like saying, "gee, I disagree with those suicide bombers, but it's their choice."

To require men to be fathers without giving them equal authority over the child's life and death fate is to continue the unjustices that occur in the present legal system during divorce and custody. They used to say 'no taxation without representation' to express the idea that rights and responsibilities come hand in hand. A child is not a woman's alone. Not as a burden, not as chattel.

liberty, both Italy and France have abortion on demand. The difference in Europe is that the procedure is covered, so out-of-pocket expenses are minimal. Healthcare is also easier to get.

The question isn't really whether abortions are desirable. They are not, and virtually no one in the west says they are. The only question is how to reduce them. All serious research in the matter (which is very difficult) indicates that banning abortion simply moves it underground and does not reduce it. In Ireland for instance, abortion is illegal, but about 8.5% of Irish pregnancies are aborted in the UK. Since Irish women also travel to Spain, France and Belgium for abortions, the total abortion rate is still pretty high. Higher than it is in Germany, for instance.

It is not difficult to understand why the European countries have lower abortion rates. Abortions happen when women find themselves pregnant but cannot imagine how to continue their life with a child. Banning abortions can at best force these women to have the child anyway. If the mother's dread was justified, their lives become dreadful. Even if it is not justified, the relation between mother and child may suffer terribly.

To reduce abortions, focus on safe sex ed, universal and cheap healthcare insurance, universal and cheap education, abundant and cheap childcare and affirmative action for mothers. It works. If women see children as less of a burden, fewer will decide to have an abortion.

@ libertyforall

You write a well-reasoned argument. A couple of points:

I saw the map that Douthat linked to, and it doesn't prove his point very well. While Ireland, Spain, and Portugal indeed have strict regulations on abortion, in Austria (where I live), Italy, and France the regulations are more or less like in America. The one difference is that after 12 weeks it requires thorough counseling. My point, however, was that there are no pro-life movements in Europe as there are in America, and much more has been done to reduce abortions using a pragmatic, humanistic approach which American pro-lifers would be good to adopt. However, the polarized 30-year battle over Roe has kept the focus on definitions rather than solutions.

So, in my experience, I understood what Kmiec meant when he said that Obama had more to offer Catholic voters on the abortion question, and didn't see it as mental gymnastics at all.

And I disagree with your assertion that "the abortion debate debate often boils down to people who want to protect zygotes against people who want an abortion on demand for any reason up to delivery." The pro-life movement has consistently hinged its arguments on the idea that life begins, unequivically, at conception, and therefore all abortion is murder. This turns the argument into "us vs. everyone who disagrees with our basic premise." I've never seen the pro-life movement ask for an earlier cut-off period for abortion, only for outright bans, or for backdoor laws like the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" which were no less than attempts to get into law their belief that a fetus equals a person, thus acting as a useful future precedent should Roe be overturned.

The US abortion laws allow abortion up until viability, typically around 24 weeks gestational period, with exceptions after that for health of the mother. Italy and France prevent abortion after 12 weeks except for health of mother issues. Yeah, it's easier to get government funding for abortions in Europe, but that's a relatively small part of the abortion debate, and there are independent organizations that help women without insurance end unwanted pregnancies.

Conservatives would be thrilled to get the limit moved to 12 weeks. Roe forbids it.