Effective Pro-Lifery

If I were a pro-abortioner,* I would be quite unnerved by a series of very effective ads being run by this group.  I saw the ad as a poster on a DC bus.

I think they're effective because they're attacking Roe.  They're not making the absurd stem cell argument; they're not even being theological.  They're phrased in such a way as to genuinely ask: Do you think this is too far?  How far is too far?  I think that's a valid question, and folks on both sides would do well to consider the issue in those terms.  It definitely refocused my own thinking on the question.

It's unfortunate that the issue has degenerated so far because of the noise on both sides of the debate.  I guess that's why I think ads like this are so incisive.

* - I confess to having ill-formed views on the issue, so please don't bombard me with shrill emails one way or the other.

Comments

[otto]

If the current Roe/Casey policy outcome was derived from Congressional politics/the electorate, this would be a great poster. The argument is: we've gone to far, maybe abortion should be available only BEFORE it sucks its thumb etc. It may work very well with the inconsistent pro-Roe, pro-restrictions on abortion median voter.

But in fact, as we all know, the Roe/Casey policy outcome is derived from the courts, and therefore further restrictions cannot be introduced by electoral politics. What the pro-life organisations need to do is argue for a change of venue (from Courts to the States or Congress), rather than a change of policy. This is the harder advocacy problem to get the median voter to swing with. Indeed, its because the median voter can be persuaded by this sort of poster that the pro-abortion choice interest group need judicial imposition of their policy preference.

[Adrienne]

I'm all for sensible appeals from both sides of the abortion divide, and I think it's worthwhile that these ads are asking "how far is too far?" I wish they'd be a little bit more straightforward, though. In the ad, they list seven "markers" of fetal development, of which the first four occur within the first trimester, and the other three occur in the 2nd or 3rd trimesters. Of course, most people will look at the ad and say "abortion after the heart starts beating? how horrific!", not realizing that the heart starts beating within a month of conception. How does that square with the fact that most people believe--albeit uncomfortably--that abortion should be legal during the first trimester?

Granted, Roe forced the whole abortion issue into these arbitrary trimester measuring sticks, and maybe that's so entrenched that we can't move beyond it. But I am glad we're asking these questions now, finally...