I couldn't have said it better myself

I contacted a number of churches in my home area recently and received a reply from one of the local ministers, Dr. Warren Schatz. Warren was a student of mine about 20 years ago. Since I was a business professor, I didn't have too many of my grads go into the pulpit (just two that I know of in over 25 years). But Warren did, and judging by his email he is no doubt giving very insightful guidance to his congregation.

I asked him if I could post his thoughts on life issues, a request to which he readily agreed provided I give it a bit of editing (very little was needed). His comments follow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John: I was intrigued by your thoughts on the pro-life issue - I have been thinking over how pro-life groups approach this issue in Canada and wondered if perhaps a different approach is needed.

It so often seems that there are two different arguments going on, and neither one really speaks to the other. For pro-life groups the issue is all about protecting the right of the baby and so is focused on showing that a baby in the womb is still a baby. [The movement] does a pretty good job of that.

The only problem is, the other side isn't necessarily all that concerned with the rights of the baby. They are totally focused on the rights of the woman; and somehow thousands of years of male dominated society have all become focused on this one issue. Therefore to argue for pro-life is to be seen as wanting to negate all the gains women have made in our society.

It just somehow seems to me that the two sides are often simply talking past each other. The pro-choice side doesn't really say anything about the rights of the baby (or come up with any scientific reason to say it's not a real baby) and the pro-life side doesn't say anything about how this issue speaks to the rights of women. I think this is seen in the opposites in the debate - those who are pro-life are not really anti-women's choice and those who are pro-choice aren't really pro-death.

I wondered how it would re-frame the debate if the pro-life side were to concede that women should have the right to choose, since in a practical sense they always will--legalities aside--and then focus on trying to create an environment where women can feel free to choose to have the baby.

It seems appalling to me (and probably has Satan laughing with glee) that women our 'forced' to take a stand for their freedom by killing their own offspring--what a tragedy. I guess I'm wondering if shifting the debate from the current legal focus on what is allowed, to a women's health issue might work better. I do worry that this may not be feasible because it would require some concession on the part of the pro-life movement in terms of recognizing that some abortions would probably always happen, and I'm not sure if the movement is open to any kind of compromise or even if it should. It just seems to me that cutting down on abortions has got to be better than what we have now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your comments on Warren's thoughts are welcome. I'll publish any that bring value-added to the debate (in other words, that aren't rants). But please keep them short.