Is there a middle ground in the abortion debate?

Timothy Shriver writes a good piece about the abortion debate for Newsweek/The Washington Post --

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/religionfromtheheart/2008/09/pro_trig.html


Here are some thoughts of my own:


As a whole, people who believe life begins at conception are going to vote overwhelmingly for McCain this fall. Despite some earlier equivocations, McCain is presenting himself as stridently pro-life; Obama is clearly pro-choice.


But is Roe v Wade really in any danger of being overturned? As long as abortion is legal, pro-life candidates get a cache of votes from pro-life voters without having to represent any of their other interests. Would the majority of politicians that benefit from this arrangement really be anxious to give up such a strategic advantage? If elected officials cared as much about the issue as single-minded voters, wouldn’t Senators filibuster at every opportunity? Wouldn’t Representatives attach riders to every bill?


Nothing would fire up feminists like restricting women’s reproductive choices. News stories about botched back-alley abortions would flood the media. More unwanted children would further strain a safety net already full of holes.


Every abortion is a tragedy. But the best way to reduce abortion is not to reduce supply, but to eliminate demand, to change hearts and minds, to convince everyone to enjoy sex only in the context of committed, loving marriages. Barring that, there are going to continue to be unwanted pregnancies, some of which will end in abortion – legal or otherwise.


The person sitting in the Oval Office probably won’t make a big difference on these issues. John McCain would certainly be more apt to appoint pro-life judges, but there will only be incremental changes in the regulation of abortion in the foreseeable future.

Despite my general skepticism of the political process, I have the slightest bit of hope that Barack Obama could lift the level of discourse in this country. You cannot win a debate until people are actually talking to each other. If people are more engaged, if there is a greater sense of community, inclusiveness, and shared purpose, then maybe we could begin to break the vicious cycles of poverty and personal irresponsibility that feed the abortion industry.


I repeat: abortion is a tragedy. But so is militarism, inadequate healthcare, profligate energy use, a failing education system, and personal and corporate unwillingness to do more for the least of these inside AND outside our borders.