Joanna Veth at World Mag's blog points out why no pro-choicers are willing to step up to the plate and answer the question - "Why should there be less abortions?"
Some might see this as a decided shift in the terms of debate, a significant achievement for the pro-life cause. That's why I'm skeptical. Mr. Sullivan blithely ignores the intellectual and philosophical difficulty of switching from the position that abortion is a positive good, an important civil right, and an essential component of "women's health care" to treating abortion as, as he puts it, "a profound moral choice." If you support abortion, how can you agree that we need less of a good thing, less "health care," and fewer people exercising a civil right? Once you concede that we "should" have less abortion, then you concede ground to the contention that abortion is not a good thing, that it is, in fact, a "bad thing."