What some abortion supporters have learned over time

This is a necessary conversation taking place in the abortion movement. Finally, they are acknowledging that all the efforts of the pro-life movement across the spectrum of advocacy for the unborn has had a significant effect.

Advocates of choice have had a hard time dealing with the increased visibility of the fetus. The preferred strategy is still to ignore it and try to shift the conversation back to women. At times, this makes us appear insensitive, a bit too pragmatic in a world where the desire to live more communitarian and “life-affirming” lives is palpable. To some people, pro-choice values seem to have been unaffected by the desire to save the whales and the trees, to respect animal life and to end violence at all levels. Pope John Paul II got that, and coined the term “culture of life.” President Bush adopted it, and the slogan, as much as it pains us to admit it, moved some hearts and minds. Supporting abortion is tough to fit into this package.

It’s a relief to see some serious introspection within the movement. But they’re still trying to hang on to some old cliches. 

At the same time, women and their decisions have come under ever more powerful microscopes. The specter of women forced into back alleys as a result of a one-time “mistake” has been replaced with hard questions about why women get pregnant when they don’t want to have babies.

The issues of crisis pregnancy have certainly seized the day, but it’s past time to let go of that ‘back alley abortion’ fear mongering. It doesn’t work, in fact, because of the growing availability of crisis pregnancy centers.

In recent years, the antiabortion [pro-life] movement successfully put the nitty-gritty details of abortion procedures on public display, increasing the belief that abortion is serious business and that some societal involvement is appropriate. Those who are pro-choice have not convinced America that we support a public discussion of the moral dimensions of abortion.

Now that’s a big admission to make, and people committed to changing hearts along with laws ought to welcome this dialogue. They’re struggling to have one.

If pro-choice values are to regain the moral high ground, genuine discussion about these challenges needs to take place within the movement. It is inadequate to try to message our way out of this problem. Our vigorous defense of the right to choose needs to be accompanied by greater openness regarding the real conflict between life and choice, between rights and responsibility. It is time for a serious reassessment of how to think about abortion in a world that is radically changed from 1973.

Abortion advocacy never had the moral high ground, they only had more sway over public opinion in the past. Their vigorous defense needs to start by dropping the claim that it’s ‘choice’ that they’re defending, and use honest language. Or at least accept informed consent laws across the states so the word ‘choice’ could more honestly be used. But only with reservations.

Because this newfound openness is great, but only if it is honest regarding the real conflict between life and death.