Revisiting Roe-based Reservation

Revisiting my post from last month on the abortion debate's "middle ground."

Abortion is as polarizing of an issue as it is, not solely because of differing opinions on what starts when, but on differing talking points altogether. Pro-lifers (at least the ones who aren’t bombing clinics) are not “anti-choice” or “anti-women,” just as pro-choicers (at least the ones who don’t work for Planned Parenthood) are not “pro-death” or “pro-abortion.” Imagine the prohibition supporter calling someone who favored its repeal “pro-alcoholism.” That ending abortion has more at stake than ending alcoholism is true, but it is because life throws at us issues with differing degrees are why we philosophize at all: to maintain a principled approach throughout.

Ask someone who is pro-choice if they would prefer a world without abortion provided it remained legal, they quite probably would say yes. Ask someone who is pro-life if they would prefer a world without abortion provided it remained legal, they may very well say, “I’m confused as to the question, isn’t banning it how we end it?”

In the pro-life community, it’s commonly – although I admit subtly – held that reversing Roe is the equivalent to ending abortion, and therefore warrants 100% of all of our effort in building a culture of life. If, tomorrow, the Supreme Court reversed Roe, and further ruled that the Constitution guarantees a right to life for the unborn, one of two things will inevitably happen: abortion will end, or abortion will go underground. For the pro-life community to center their efforts on reversing Roe implies a faith that the former will happen.

Further, if it’s true that abortion would immediately end, then the current debate is entirely appropriate. Personally, I have my doubts, although we can’t prove one or the other. What we’re left with is figuring out a way, somehow, to end abortion. Pro-lifers can’t literally reverse Roe, but we can equip pro-choicers to do everything that non-legally centered pro-life battlers can do: peacefully persuade our fellow citizens to practice sexual responsibility (see also: abstinence) and ultimately choose against abortion; that is, SAVE PRECIOUS LIVES!

That co-operation involves merely noting that which is:
a.) already true, and
b.) can’t be immediately changed by anyone not sitting on the Supreme Court right now. Abortion, at present, is legal.

My point is not that we need to redefine when life begins to appease some members of the pro-choice crowd; Rome, natural law, and common sense have already defined it for us. Nor do I want to end efforts, necessarily, at reversing Roe. My goal is, in part, to point out to the pro-life community that my hypothetical situation (abortion over but still legal) mentioned above absolutely achieves the end we have in mind: the end of abortion.