Pro-choice. Period.

Once again Amy Sullivan, liberalism's ambassador to Christian America, has done a very brave thing. In the Washington Monthly, she suggests that the Democrats should moderate their rhetoric on abortion. According to Amy, the Democrats should emphasize that they don't like abortions, but see them as a necessity. In other words, they must distinguish between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. Amy is not alone. Several other commentators and even John Kerry have suggested the same thing. The idea appears to be to finesse abortion as a political issue in order to get back to economics.

What we are talking about here is not substantive positioning but rhetorical framing. Amy doesn't think the Democrats should modify their stands even on controversial issues like so-called "partial birth" abortions or parental notification. Instead, Ms. Sullivan suggests that Democrats should emphasize their approach as trying to reduce the number of abortions without making it illegal or restricting access.

Unfortunately, I just don't see how you can square that circle. If Democrats don't change their positions on concrete matters of concern, they will just be seen as trimming. I can imagine the debate:

Democratic Candidate: I believe abortions should be safe, legal, and rare.

Republican Candidate: I think that we need to protect life. My opponent doesn't! He's just waffling again!

Democratic Candidate: That's not true!

Republican Candidate: Really? Are you in favor of letting parents know when their teenage daughters are getting abortions?

Democratic Candidate: Uh, no. You see....

Republican Candidate: I see well enough, and so do the voters. They can see you're still in favor of allowing the murder of near-term children!

Democratic Candidate: Not exactly......

It reads like a damned Hannity and Colmes transcript. And the reason it does is that our hypothetical Democrat has already conceded that abortion is morally wrong. Once he does that, the debate is over. The Republican can just hammer away that at least he is sticking to a consistent moral position, that he is a man of principle.

In constructing a rhetorical narrative, it is absolutely vital to set the terms of the debate. By accepting the argument that abortion is a bad thing, you concede far too much grounds to the Republicans. The reason that the pro-choice activists have defined themselves they way they have is because they want the argument to be about choice. The focus needs to remain on the woman and her problems. The minute you divert attention to the foetus, you have lost the battle.

Honestly, why is "pro-life" a respectable position? Why must we compromise on this issue? Everyone but fanatics is pro-choice if the woman's life is in danger or there has been rape or incest (unfortunately, a lot of anti-choice people ARE fanatics). But what about a teenager? Must she bear a child to term? How about if she is in college? Should she drop out and take care of it, compromising her entire future? As for the adoption option, has it occurred to anyone how physically and emotionally traumatic it is to give birth to a human being? And why is it that women should be presented with these choices? Because of the sin of Eve? Because they had the temerity to have sex without the purpose of procreation? Give me a break.

So it finally comes down to this: anti-choice positions are ultimately unacceptable because they are ultimately about imposing one's religious beliefs (that sex is for the purpose of procreation, that life begins at conception) on others. "Pro-life" amounts simply to controlling women's sexual activities. The only reasonable “pro-life” position out there is to say that you won't have an abortion yourself. Other than that, you just don't get a vote in what others do.

I'm not pro-choice because I like abortion per se. But I do think that early abortions should be absolutely protected under any circumstances in which a woman decides she doesn't want to reproduce. Once the foetus can exist independently outside the womb (without scientifically advanced assistance), it is then reasonable to weight the interests of the foetus against the interests of the woman. It is only here that we can have meaningful debates over whether abortions should be permitted. I think that this is the pure pro-choice position, and I also think it is the only morally acceptable position to have.

We should never reduce women to instruments of another's will, to make her a conveyor belt for baby production. There is a reason that feminism came in the wake of effective birth control. The ability to control one's reproductive choices opened the door out of the kitchen. And I for one am never going to help shut that door.