Who frames the debate about abortion?

One of the people I'm keeping my eye on as a possible GOP candidate for president in 2012 (although he hasn't announced, as of this writing) is Indiana governor Mitch Daniels. He has raised the ire of some fellow conservatives by suggesting a 'truce' with Dems on social issues, so the serious business of our national debt and an economic recovery can be tackled.

I like that, because if a Republican candidate is to be found who can win, he or she cannot be too far to the right on issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. But, of course, that raises the question of what constitutes 'too far' to the right. Daniels _is_ a conservative, and he will shortly be signing a bill passed by the Indiana legislature which puts further restrictions on abortions in that state. It also defunds Planned Parenthood in Indiana, a provision Daniels didn't particularly favor, but which was not enough to deter him from signing. That provision will likely mean the loss of $4 million in federal funds, something Daniels, as a cost-conscious executive, isn't happy about, but which didn't trump his conviction that the abortion restriction was morally right.

For my most liberal friends, _any_ restriction on abortion, or any beyond what currently exist, is too far to the right. For someone really on the right of the spectrum on this issue, the Indiana restriction wouldn't be enough. So, what is it? Indiana will now be one of only a handful of states--five, I think--which outlaw abortion after 20 weeks. I believe a much larger number use 24 weeks as the cutoff.

Abortion is such a flashpoint precisely because it _is_ so complicated. Philosophically and from a religious standpoint, if a fetus in the womb is considered a life, then 'when' an abortion is acceptable and when it's not, doesn't matter because it could never be acceptable. I respect those who sincerely believe that, and I think they are maligned when pro-choice advocates portray them, often as a deliberate tactic, as wanting to oppress women by taking away a woman's 'rights.' What they really believe, is that a woman's right to an abortion does not trump another human being's right not to be murdered.

For them, the point at which a fetus becomes viable, i.e., could live outside the womb, doesn't matter, and again, I respect that view. But as a practical matter--in terms of making public policy--it does matter, and history demonstrates that viability has always factored into the equation. In many societies and time periods, the idea of terminating a pregnancy in the early stages was accepted; the common conception was that at a certain point--often when the baby could first be felt moving--the child became 'ensouled,' or became a person.

Is moving from 24 weeks to 20 as a cutoff a good thing? I believe it is. NARAL, Planned Parenthood, etc., think not, of course, because they believe it is merely an early salvo in a coming war to chip away abortion rights further, if not eliminate them altogether. Certainly, some people would like to see that happen, but the idea that preventing such an outcome depends on digging in and fighting _any_ restrictions is just not logical--it's emotional.

I have no numbers to cite, but I believe a significant majority of Americans accept that a woman's ability to obtain a safe abortion should not be taken away, but also believe there is a responsibility on the part of that woman to obtain it as expeditiously as possible--that there IS a moral difference between aborting a half-inch long fetus that is not yet capable of feeling pain, and aborting one that could actually live, if delivered. I know that a baby delivered several years ago at under 22 weeks survived, and there may be others younger than that, that I haven't heard about. Certainly, given that, 20 weeks as a cutoff, rather than 24, is reasonable.

For those who would say that there are plenty of reasons a woman could be 5-1/2 to 6 months pregnant or more and still require an abortion, maybe so, but most of them aren't compelling enough to warrant the abortion of a baby that is viable. Genuine danger to the mother's life, yes. And as sad as some individual cases might be--women who were victims of incest, for example, who were prevented from seeking help earlier--it is reasonable to decide that unusual and isolated cases should not be the basis for state law. And for those who will argue that late-term abortions will be sought out, anyway, in unsafe conditions, if they are not legally permitted, I don't see that that fact, upsetting as it is, constitutes sufficient reason for deciding there should be no legislation aimed at reducing a practice which does, in fact, take viable lives.

Because that's at the crux of the contention between so-called 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' factions. Whether we like it or not, some reasonable middle ground must be achieved and maintained because a woman does have rights. But her rights are not unlimited, and babies have rights, too.

I know there are many who will disagree with me, so feel free to let me know why.