One can I think justifiably point the finger at the promoters of baby killing as the denizens of the middle class comfort zone. They require the icon of the “poor underprivileged woman” who does not know better and requires their Lady Bountiful assistance.

Far better than arguing head on surely is arguing from the results. 13 million black babies killed in the abortuaries in this country. Blacks are a particular target of the baby killers as Justice Ginsberg made clear in her statement about the kinds of people who would be [or should have been] affected by Roe v.Wade.

One cannot say the baby killers have not been as clear in their objectives, as Hitler was in MEIN KAMPF. And with the same underlying hysteria.

Couple this with economic individualism, capitalistic urges to promote one’s creation of wealth, and the loss of any communitarian sensibility (so much so that when one suggests that it isn’t bad to hold hands during the Our Father at Mass that notable conservative blogggers instinctively cry “sacrilege”) and the recipe is a loss of respect for all life. Except one’s own.

We are nothing but a community of Ayn Rand followers in which on frequent occasions the fetus is the enemy of self-pursuits. With World War 2 priming an entire generation to the act of killing and dehumanization, it is no shock that abortion became legal as the “greatest generation” held the levers of power.

Rebuilding and demonstrating respect for life-all life (illiegal immigrants, condemned criminals, the poor), hatred of war, and hatred of dehumanizing violence in radical ways (did anyone pay attention when the past three popes decried war) will be a beginning to the end of abortion.

Talking about sex will once again miss the mark. While sexual conservatism is a comfort zone for pro-lifers and conservative Catholics, it will gain as little traction as any of the past 35 years of activism has. The pro-life movement has to change and retreating to comfort zones as it has done routinely for 35 years is no solution. Resorting to Plan A once again after 35 years of failure is a waste of time and resources.

(1) Many prominent feminists argue that if the man is so irresponsible (and likely abusive), the single mother is better without him and the state should take care of her and her baby.

(2) If someone on the pro-choice side opens the door to holding the delinquent fathers to account, the delinquent fathers can claim the pro-choice stance to avoid child support. After all, the single mother chose to have the baby instead of follow his wishes, she assumed full responsibility for the child. If the issue goes to the US supreme court, I don’t see how it’s possible to avoid either child support (when the father chooses to be pro-choice) or abortion being made unconstitutional. If the preborn baby is legally recognized as a human, child support is defensible since you cannot order a woman to murder.

I think that Frederica Mathewes-Green’s commentary (see Pro-Choice to Pro-Life: Unfolding a Journey http://www.veritas.org/media/talks/217) can provide room for some common ground:
“No woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice-cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal, caught in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg.”

As a woman’s issue, it’s important for the pro-life side to provide as much help as possible for women to avoid that trap and care for single mothers so that they will not feel forced to “gnaw off their own leg”.

As a woman’s issue, abortion (especially in countries like China) can often serve as a screening mechanism — one that allows couples (often with strong influence from the non-delinquent father but sometimes due to familial pressure) can abort a child if the child is female and keep the child if the child is male. If the preborn child is not legally human, society can do nothing to protect preborn girls from the ultimate form of abuse against women.

There’s also common ground in another area. It’s a children’s issue. Even the most strident pro-abortionist that believes that a preborn baby (even 9 months old) is a not human being, most people believe that infanticide is wrong. Unfortunately, highly influential ethicist like Peter Singer ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Abortion.2C_euthanasia_and_infanticide ) have given convincing arguments in favour of infanticide since there is no way to distinguish a child just before birth (when abortion is legal in the US) and after birth. Constitutionally, if late term abortions are allowed, the infanticide will inevitably be allowed.

Finally, it’s not only a woman’s issue. It’s also an issue of the disabled. Many parts of the world, including the US, already have pre birth disease checks of babies. As time goes on, the list of diseases being checked will likely grow. They are not explicitly for the purposes of abortion, but with legal abortion, there’s no legal way to prevent one from happening if the child has a disease or is likely to have a diseases. Imagine a world without Stephen Hawkins, Helen Keller, and countless others.
Disability advocates find this abhorrent, and so do pro-lifers.

IMO, pro-lifers need to emphasize their support for the disabled when presenting their case and their support for screening against women. It not only can help prevent prebirth screening abortions from becoming “just a clinical medical procedure”, it also projects a more positive image.