Another take on Pollitt v. Saletan

From George Neumayr (emphasis mine):

"Pro-abortion purists like Pollitt have grown tired of this song-and-dance and can see that the cowardice of elected Democrats is on the side of pro-lifers. In the end, given a choice between saving abortion and saving themselves politically in a culture moving away from it, these Democrats will choose the latter.

All of their changes in tone, ostensibly adopted to save legal abortion from demise, are hastening it. Pollitt correctly assesses the psychology of the debate. By conceding that abortion is bad, pro-choicers lose all footing in it and invite the American people to ask and act on the question: if it is so bad, why is it legal?

William Saletan's position (which Pollitt singles out for criticism) of morally opposing abortion while legally supporting it isn't sustainable logically or culturally. Pollitt asked Saletan the inconvenient question that renders his position untenable in a Slate exchange in early February: "You don't explain why, exactly, you, a pro-choicer, find abortion so outrageous, so terribly morally offensive, so wrong."

Democrats can't persuasively call abortion bad merely because it is unpleasant for women (Hillary Clinton has tried to finesse it this way — as a "tragedy" for women without making any reference to the child). Ultimately, they will have to acknowledge the injustice to the child. They are traveling through various stages of concession, a path that will take them from wanting abortion "rare" to calling it "bad" to finally admitting that it is unjust and therefore subject to law."