In today's NY Times, Ross Douthat writes an even-handed article on regulating (or not regulating) late-term abortion. While Douthat does not feel abortion should be regulated, he goes to great lengths to point out that most abortions are elective, and most of those are repeat, meaning that many abortions, including late-term abortions,  in fact have no medical (or rape) justification. He then argues that because pro-choicers (or the Supreme Court, anyway) have enshrined the "near-absolute right" to abortion in law, that we are crippled in our ability to argue the finer points of abortion law and be more respectful of human life. 

In short, Douthat wants to further open up the discussion about abortion and the law, as it is in many other developed nations. 

The problem with Douthat's article is that he fails to address the primary point of most of us who are pro-choice -- until the woman doesn't have to bare the full brunt of pregnancy and child-rearing, we have to prioritize her right to life over her unborn child's. By life, we don't just mean survival, but the ability to live life as she chooses. Until a single mother can work AND be provided free, full-time childcare, until her pregnancy costs are fully paid for, and she is given vastly extended leave from work, there's no conversation to be had.

But even if those conditions are met, there is still the fact that pregnancy is inherently painful and risky; being a single mother, especially a young single mother, carries with it a stigma. If we take care of our mothers and mothers-to-be unconditionaly, there is a conversation to be had about abortion, despite the risks and pains associated with motherhood. However, we're not even close to that point. Children are still the burden of their parents in many ways, and in the case of women, they are frequently an imposed burden. 

A fetus may or may not be a person, but an adult woman will always be more worth protecting.