Live Q&As

While my views are very much like yours, we need to be careful about two issues you seem to blow past.  First, some people judge a woman who chooses abortion because they believe that she has in fact taken a full human life.  Were you to beleive that the fetus is in fact fully human, then you too would likely judge her to be gulty of manslaughter, if not murder-- at least I hope you would.  the fact that we do not believe a fetus is fully human does not mean that we can simply or casually dismiss those who do, even as we remain committed to them not being able to compel us to submit to theit view.

Second, there are plenty of people who are pro-abortion, as I have come to learn.  In fact, I will never forget asking a regional director for Planned Parenthood when was the last time she had reccommended a woman carry her pregnancy to term, and she could not recall.  It was a chilling and disturbing moment.  If the pro-life movement needs to be careful about imposing their views on others, and the certainly do, the same can be said for at least some segments of the pro-choice community.

You are not wrong, but the fact is, that redefiniton is a way of moving beyond curent constraints.  If people began to feel the falseness of the dichotomy between choice and life -- at least in many circumstances -- we might be able to move this debate to a more productive place, one which had greater respect for both choice and life.

That, and the irony of a pro-life argument being entirely driven by committment to a woman's right to choose, is simply too important to gloss over.

It's actually a very big issue because it offers the opportunity for people to appreciate that in fact, all people want the freedom to choose -- but some insist that that there can be only one right choice.  The young woman in this case argued that her right to choose her own path, and that of the fetus/baby she carries, is exactly the same argument made by the foces which she and her lawyers most oppose!  Any time that real experience helps us to cut through the confusion created by those who choose policy over people, we need to pay attention.  It's how better policy gets made, or at least can be.

You would be correct, if it were a matter of decided fact that an unborn child is a full human life.  While that may be your belief, it is not one shared by all people, or even a majority of Americans.  To be clear, majorities can, and have in the past, made wrong and even immoral decisions, but given how much reasonable argument there is on both sides of this issue, you might at least acknowledge that your conclusion is not assuredly correct.

Secondly, your premise that all women who choose abortion, do so "on a whim"" is not only insensitive, it is factually wrong.  Had you written that you are deeply troubled by phenomenon of women having multiple abortions and simply using it as their birth control mehtod of choice, I would be right there with you.  That is wrong for any number of reasons.  It could also be addressed in any number of ways, without making abortion illegal.

It may be a matter of expediency, but that matter of expediency is a wonderful and teachable moment.  It reminds us that even so-called "immutable" principles may in fact, be mutable -- under certain circumstances -- and that rather that either side fighting for those so-called principles, they should be advocating for values which could be honored in multiple and competing ways.

Interesting, most Americans know this, and that is why we poll out time and again, as being BOTH pro-choice and actively anti-abortion.  In other words, the fundamentalists on both sides of this issue, as is the case with so many issues which divide the nation, neither represent our collective view, nor contribute to the making of policy which refelcts that view.

You are certainly right about the odds being against the very young couple, and I hope that the community which supports their decison will continue to support them as they try and make both parenting and marriage work.  That's the real test of being pro-lfe, a committemnt which should not end simply because a young woman decides to keep the baby.

The distinction between what is legal and what is moral can be problematic for two reasons:

1, the arguments advanced by both sides in this debate often and often quite purposefully blur that very distinction.

2, while we say that we do not legistlate morality -- gnerally prefering individual liberty over legislated moral norms -- that is clearly not always the case.  In fact, we legistlate all kinds of moral issues.  We simply don't talk about it as such because we tend to do so when there is broad agreement about the issue and simply assume "that's just the way things should be".

In fact, what we need is greater honesty about the fact that we legislate morality all the time -- sometimes from the right and sometimes from the left.  We could also use a greater level of awareness that such debates are often not between good and evil, but between competing goods -- some honored more fully by so-called conservtives and others by so-called liberals. 

Of course, you are right.  By itself, this one case will not change a thing, but it can help a different set of people to shapre, if nt control, a conversation which typically accomplishes little good beyond providing intellectual ammunition for each side to lob verbal bombs (and sometimes worse) at their respective opponants.  Seize the moment!

How does your obvious snark and anger advance the conversation?  Why lable the father a "sperm donor"?  Because of his age?  Because it helps you feel better about feeling bad about him -- not for him, but about him?  And why confuse committtment to the sanctity of life -- however defined -- with economics?  Do you support the notion that potential parents should be means tested before being allowed to make a baby?  I mean it's an interesting idea -- if kind of scary.

My point is that you have actualy raised some potentially important points, points which deserve to be be considered regardless of when one thinks life begins, but because you do so with so msuch contempt for others, it's hard to take you as seriously as you deserve to be.

I appreciate your honesty and don't think you are at all cynical.  I think you have identified the heart of the issue.  We all want to feel that we have choices.  In fact, the ability to choose is one of the most dignifying human experiences, and coercion one of the least.  The divide her is between those willing to extend to others what they want for themselves, even when those others make a different choice.

I admit, that for those who truly believe that life begins at conception, this is a terrible bind to be in.  That said, I do not think their bind trumps others' freedom to choose.  Maybe if I shared their view I would....

Thank you.  Your support means a great deal.  Please spread the word, as this, as with most things in the media, is about numbers.  Quality too -- especially at the WPost -- but numbers also.

We agree about the first half of your comment, and it is what makes this such an important moment.  But if you are correct about people supporting the choice they endorse, then you would have to ask about the pro-choice community's refusal to look at how abortions could be reduced even as they protect the legal right to get one.  In fact, former President Clinton got into more than a little hot water with many in the pro-choice community when he spoke about the idea that abortions should be kept legal, safe and rare.  As with so many things he said, he found a middle ground that pleased few politcal pro's, yet resonated with much of the nation.

They did NOT fight for the rights of the un-born to be born.  In fact, that argument would have had no legal standing.  Whether they like it or not, the attorney's who advocated for this young woman, made a powerful case for a woman's right to choose.

You are certainly correct about the challenges of advocating for a choice you would not make, and ultimately doing so hinges on one's committemnt to the sacredness of the excercise of choice as an expression of human dignity.  And certainly both sides want to position themselves as "pro-something" as that is a much easier sell in American public culture.  But let's be clear, not all, or even most pro-choice folks are "pro-abortion", and the.  term pro-life is a creation of the movement, not the media.  Both those realities are functions of what I wrote above.

First, there are real health risks linked to repeated surgical procedures, including abortions.  Second, there is real cultural risk when the removal of anything from one's system, including a potential, if not actual, life becomes trivialized.  There are plenty more, but that should suffice for now.

If you were asking about what we could so to avoid getting into this problem, that would include a sophisitcated, non-polarized, approach to sex education, birth control, the meaning and power of conception regardless of what one defines as a human life, etc.  It would require an honest reflection from abortion providers about their bias against keeping pregnancies, and and equally honest reflection by those opposed to women's choice about the absence of a real safety net which would make keeping those babies a more realisitc and healthy choice.