Among these are life

A couple of pieces on the question of life and protecting it showed up today -- Matt May in The American Thinker, and my friend Paul Chesser in the Washington Examiner.

Paul offers an interesting idea -- if historically pro-abortion politicians are serious about reaching out to the pro-life voters, why not use that leadership to encourage some dialogue between the two factions?

Setting aside the flawed logic that abortion should be rare instead of banned altogether, crisis pregnancy leaders should take pro-choicers at their word and propose a few ideas. How about an arrangement to work together? They could offer to create co-counseling teams to advise each of their clients, so that all who seek help would receive both points of view. Crisis pregnancy centers, which are collecting more and more ultrasound machines, could provide free sonograms for patients of both facilities, which few abortion clinics appear to offer. As it is currently, neither group would be constrained in how they advise. Both organizations would still distribute the supplies (condoms from Planned Parenthood clinics; baby clothes from crisis pregnancy centers) that they've always provided.

Of course the question before the house in some respects may not be when does life begin, but rather, when should we be allowed to end it? My own contribution is this -- What if we simply applied the same test to abortion that we do for causing death in self-defense?

I think most pro-lifers would concede at least that point; it would harmonize with the liberal abhorrence of death by [judicial] decree, and it would naturally exclude the sex-selection, personal convenience, and ex post facto contraception cases which both sides (officially) criticize.

All it would require is the admission on the left that there are two people, not one, on the table. But that, I fear, would be too much to ask.