In Pursuit of the Abortion Debate's Middle Ground: Anyone Care to Join Me?

Whenever people with differing opinions debate their respective positions, finding common ground is integral. The abortion debate is no different. It’s entirely possible that progress on abortion dialogue might only occur with a similar pursuit towards what is held mutually, and not an emphasis on where the camps differ.

Perhaps the following statement could be a good starting point:

A society where abortion is rare but freely chosen is superior to one where abortion is prevalent but freely chosen.

That is, all else being equal, the act of an abortion isn’t a part of anyone’s vision for an ideal world.

My hope is that many in the pro-choice camp might be willing to admit this. Even if one disagrees with a certain humanity of the unborn, there still lies the potential for human life, which is not meaningless. Abortions are often chosen as a backup to botched family planning efforts; while we may disagree on the application, I think we can all admit that sexual responsibility is a fair price to pay to not potentially abort pregnancies. Beyond failed family planning, though, wouldn’t we all agree that rape and incest are never good? (Although using said admission to justify an abortion is an entirely different discussion.)

My fear, though, is that some in the pro-choice camp may be apprehensive about admitting this. From the extreme pro-choice philosophy, we are to be entirely neutral as to the act of an abortion. We’re to ignore that it can be gruesome and inhumane, and we’re also to disregard that it often hurts women (or stick our heads in the sand and believe that it doesn’t). I don’t know how large of a segment a fair moderate camp might be (I suspect it’s quite large), but I imagine that, by admitting my middle-of-the-road statement, these firm-yet-moderate pro-choicers may believe they risk a divide in their own camp with those who are of a more extreme pro-choice persuasion – that somehow they’re less pro-choice for admitting this.

I also hope that the pro-life camp will be willing to embrace this outside-the-box ethos. It only entails an admission that the end of abortion is a greater good than its banning. I fear that firm-yet-moderate pro-lifers may have a similar fright to their side’s extreme wing; that by being open to the possibility of abortion ending in a society where it remains legal somehow makes them less pro-life.

(As a pro-lifer, let me just say that that sort of thinking isn’t pro-life. It’s pro-abortion-law. The two can be similar, but being pro-abortion-law without being pro-life means that the work of building a culture of life equals and only equals a reversal of Roe v. Wade. How myopic.)

Prohibition didn’t work. The War on Drugs isn’t working. We’ll never be certain, but isn’t it at least possible that the same might apply to abortion? That the only way to effectively end it might be in a world wherein it is legal? The end in mind for the pro-life camp should be the end of abortion. Should not we prefer abortion’s rarity to its being banned?

I think that open-minded moderates from both blocs can forward an enhanced dialogue centered on this admission. Its application may include the following:
1.) A respect for families’ and women’s privacy surrounding their healthcare decisions. This includes, at least for the foreseeable future, the status quo as to abortion’s legalization.
2.) The price of said respect for healthcare privacy is sexual responsibility. I happen to think that’s more than fair.
3.) Sexual responsibility includes at best a society-wide preference for abstinence’s 0% failure rate, or at worst a firm resolve to maintain a healthy pregnancy should artificial contraception fail.
4.) A public proclamation that abortion, while legal, is not ideal. People who do not want to see abortion banned should not find the phrase, “Choose Life” at all weird or offensive. Those who do not want to see abortion occur at all should not find the phrase “Respect Privacy” the same.
5.) Dialogue of sex, abortion, family planning and the decisions inherent therein ought lose their current taboo status.

You can read more by checking out the website of Feminists for Life.

Both camps at present have a certain attachment to what the law says, and to seeing to it that their abortion ethos be legally codified. Pardon me while I suggest that it may be more important to maintain a certain legal status quo for those of the pro-choice camp, while not being inherently necessary to achieve the preferred end for the pro-life camp -- serious reduction/elimination of abortion.

The current abortion debate has no moderate voice; with extremists running the discussion, progress is impossible. Without change in the parameters of our dialogue, peace will never be found. Consider this blog as my suggested starting ground for these new parameters.