The abortion debate is framed all wrong

I don't like "pro-choice" vs. "pro-life" way of framing the debate. I mean, who is "anti-life"? Nobody.

I really think we need to frame the issue more honestly. The debate really comes down to whether one is "pro-abortion criminalization" or "anti-criminalization."

And once you look at the issue that way, it is easy to see why making abortion illegal is problematic. In fact, as a practical matter, an abortion ban would be virtually unenforceable without radically changing our culture.

Consider this: As things stand now, the government is not notified when a woman gets pregnant. So, if a pregnant woman goes to her doctor for an abortion, how would the government ever know what happened? Unless you want to require doctors to register all pregnancies with the authorities, that situation will not change. Hence, the government will have no way of knowing when a pregnancy starts and when it is terminated.

And, suppose a young woman is "caught" having an abortion. What do you do then? Send both her and the doctor to prison? Execute both her and the doctor? I really doubt there would be many people willing to impose such penalties.

Without making the medical records of women open to inspection by the police -- and without actually being willing to prosecute women who have abortions -- a ban on abortions would be unenforceable. The abortion criminalization crowd knows that such measures would be unpopular, impractical and unconstitutional. So, they avoid the topic.

Criminalization is, to me, where the rubber meets the road. When pushed, many people will admit to being conflicted about abortion. But very few people really want to live in a world in which women are sent to prison for having abortions, where miscarriages are subject to criminal investigations and where the cops can poke around in the files of OB-GYN clinics.

That is why I stand squarely in the "anti-criminalization" camp. There are better ways to reduce the number of abortions -- ways that do not involve the use of the criminal justice system. Criminalization is, in fact, probably the worst way to go about it.

side of the angels. Their "pro-life" stance only extends as far as the UNBORN. Once that kid starts breathing on its own, they could not care less. They are against health care, education, food stamps, birth control, and ultimately they support capital punishment and war. How does that qualify as "pro-life".?..only in their twisted version of reality...

it's a matter of whether a woman has the simple right to make medical decisions about her own body, or whether you think the gov't has a right to infringe on that bodily integrity.

Anti-choice people think it's just fine and dandy for the gov't to become involved in private medical decisions... so long as the body concerned belongs to a woman, apparently.

It's far too personal a decision to be left to anyone but the person involved.

... a bigger infringement on privacy than the threat of making your personal, medical decision into a POLICE matter?

People who want abortion banned are more than just "anti-choice." They want the restriction on choice to be enforceable using the power of the state. That means search warrants, wiretaps, arrests, prosecutions and imprisonment. In short, they are calling for criminalization.

That's scary because, in the name of fighting crime, the government has the power to do a lot of things it could no otherwise do.

you'd be trying to persuade, your argument would work nicely.

But I don't believe most of those who are anti-choice hold that position because of pragmatism. It's emotional at its core. And personal to them. I think that the only possible way to get across the message is to put them outside their own shoes and into the shoes of the person making a decision. IOW: would YOU really want to cede your medical decisions to gov't review? I think your argument comes next: and if you're so set on doing that, would you really want gov't funds and time being spent imprisoning women and doctors?

I suspect you hit on something tactically that those who use the issue for its political worth know: if such a thing were to be criminalized, their numbers would drop significantly. Most anti-choice people don't want to see that: they just want to feel they're on the side of the angels and "saving babies".

Best of all solutions, of course, is to approach the other side with the things we can agree on: (or a good many of us, anyway) better contraception, better education, better financial help for women and children, better health care for women and children... I think there's room to shave off the distance between the camps with these things.

Then, at bottom, I still think the argument will have to come down to whether a person (an actual, born person) has the right to her own body.

It's just the threat of getting pregnant and getting found it is meant to control women. They want to go back to the old way where women have a motivation to avoid sex until marriage. (re-create the penalty for not doing so). It's not about saving the lives, it's about that.

I was in church and our priest was going on about it - it was Respect Life Sunday, or whatever - and he kept referring to our values, and I thought why don't we just practice our values ourselves and not worry about whether the government legislates our values? And if we want to spread our values, then convince more people to be Catholic - why should the government enforce it on whoever doesn't share the values.

Compared with locking people up, that is a far better way to reduce abortions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD97OVJ4PNw

Anti-choice protesters are asked what the penalty should be for a woman having an abortion.

Most said they had not thought about it at all. Wow. That says a lot.