In light of the smackdown of conservatism in November (it was in all of the papers) I find it interesting/amusing that certain parties on the right think that now is the time to negotiate a compromise on abortion. On their terms, of course:
If you want a reason why an abortion compromise isn’t possible, try this contrast: My idea of a plausible middle ground on the issue requires the overturning of Roe v. Wade, followed by a move toward a system in which abortion is legal but discouraged in, say, the first ten weeks of pregnancy, and basically illegal thereafter. Whereas Will Saletan and Freddie De Boer, both serious-minded pro-choicers, are convinced that a plausible middle ground would involve pragmatic pro-lifers throwing their support (and tax dollars) behind America’s largest abortion provider, on the grounds that its commitment to preventing unplanned pregnancy makes Planned Parenthood "the most effective pro-life organization in the history of the world."
I want to give credit to Douthat for starting to realize that abortion compromise isn’t possible (progress!), while at the same time I’m deducting points from him for his notion that tossing out Roe v. Wade and instituting a state by state patchwork of Calvinball gestational rules is somehow a "plausible middle ground".
I think it’s lovely that Douthat and Saletan and Schwenkler and Freddie De Boer live in a world where they can spend endless hours
wanking debating whether Planned Parenthood should be considered pro-life or not, but the rest of us live in the real world of real decisions with real consequences. We understand that Roe v. Wade is already a compromise. A woman can choose to have an abortion… or not. She’s not forced to have a baby nor is she forced to abort it by any outside agency.
The compromise is that a woman and her doctor and her conscience get to decide which path to take and everybody else gets the hell out of the way.
See how easy that is?