Sigh.

Just a few (hopefully) quick thoughts:

1. I think a huge prejudice against NARAL, and one that I share, is a militant insistence on "choice" in all situations. True, some 60% of Americans support reproductive rights, but when pushed, a substantial proportion of that 60% would say they oppose the right to a late-term or partial-birth abortion. I do, too. There is a tenable argument that society's job is to prevent murder, and that termination of a viable fetus is indeed tantamount to murder. I would go so far as to say an act that takes the life of a "sentient being" (one that can feel pain) is morally abhorrent, when we are discussing human beings. Infanticide is not cool, in a civilized society where there are vastly preferable alternatives.

2. So what you do is back down, i.e., be reasonable, and show you aren't a knee-jerk ideologue. Granted, it is a grey area, and must be so. And any line you draw must be arbitrary. However, I would urge establishing the line at the first trimester. It causes the least amount of unease in those who feel as I do, and the vast majority of women wanting an abortion want to have it as quickly as possible, anyway. An early-term abortion also poses less risk to the woman than a later-term abortion would. But acquiescing to this first-trimester standard takes a willingness to compromise and to abide by the rule: NARAL has historically been utterly opposed to this, and is now experiencing the consequences of that unreasonable, radical, ill-considered obstinacy. It's time to abandon it, if you really want to hold any credibility in a world of grey and be treated with respect by thoughtful people.

3. "Pro-choice" is an unfortunate slogan, and I'd urge that we take this opportunity to change it. The "choice" part is the problem: the connotation is that the decision to have an abortion may be a casual one, made on a whim. Much better is the term "reproductive rights advocate." That's what it is. We are more concerned with rights than choices, and reproductive rights include not only the right to a safe and legal abortion but also to contraception and morning-after pills.

4. "Pro-Life" is also a misnomer, and should not be granted validity in any discussions made by NARAL or any other reproductive rights advocacy groups. What these people are is "reproductive rights prohibitionists," and they should be referred to as such. The associations with "prohibitionist" may be undesirable to them, but too bad: it is precisely accurate, and the consequences of their position are exactly analogous to the consequences of the prohibition of alcohol in the thirties, or of any other recreational drug in the present day. We all agree that you can't kill, or lie, or steal: but all of the above-mentioned behaviors have debatable consequences to others, and therefore have historically been very problematic to attempt to make illegal.