Politics, Abortion: The Dysfunctional Couple : Context of the debate should be shifted away from the governmental arena and to the area of personal responsibility.

What does it say about the disposition of this nation’s abortion debate when Orange County clinics are increasing security measures? What progress has been made when Paul Hill and John C. Salvi III defend the sanctity of life by killing others? What it says is the time has come to stop coddling hope that the political arena is capable of promoting a rational discussion of the issue.

If anything, the political context of the abortion debate has proven that a nation governed in part by a judicial separation of church and state, and which has yet to discern the relationship between women’s rights and the rights of the unborn, cannot produce an enforceable moral absolute or legislation that satisfies the convictions of both sides.

Since Roe vs. Wade, the political theater has served only to reveal the wanting context and structure of the arguments pressed by pro-choice and anti-abortion advocates.

On the one hand, “pro-life” proponents dogmatically press for its eradication by law under principles of religious doctrine. This is certainly protected speech under the Constitution. Nevertheless, outlawing abortion based upon religious doctrine destroys the fabric of church and state separation, as established by the U.S. Supreme Court. That means circumventing the Constitution, the very document which guarantees the free practice of their faith.

In their zeal to protect a woman’s right to control the reproductive function of her body--and that is a right--pro-choice advocates habitually place the mantle of choice at the wrong end of the equation. Too often they dismiss as irrelevant personal responsibility with respect to sexual activity and whatever right to life an unborn child has. Moreover, the rubric they call choice (read: abortion) is too often portrayed as the only legitimate option.

Real progress and understanding in the abortion debate can only come when the debate itself is removed from the political arena and is predicated on two fundamental assumptions:

* Abortion is an option of last resort.

* A long-term reduction in the number of abortions (not by law, not by religious dogma, but by choice) is a desirable end.

On their face, these assumptions imply an equation for reducing the number of abortions (good news for pro-life advocates) by individual choice, rather than at the hands of religious doctrine or written law (good news for pro-choice advocates.)

If the reduction in the number of abortions is a desirable end, it will come only when both sides understand that abortion can no more be banned under the guise of religious-based law than it can be condoned as a way out when personal responsibility has failed.

Right-to-life advocates must understand that the banning of abortion under religious pretext is an impossibility given the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution.

Meantime, “choice” proponents should jettison their indifference to the life of the unborn, and foster the notion that personal responsibility (abstinence/effective birth control) are legitimate, viable alternatives in the equation. If women assert control over the reproductive function of their bodies, they should promote sexual responsibility.

To shift the context of the debate away from political and religious extremism is to champion a common message before young men and women that is best imparted to them in the home: Personal responsibility (abstinence or effective birth control) is the most effective means of reducing the number of abortions.

To be sure, our society of diverse opinion and personal freedom will likely never dispense with abortion all together. But we can hope to shrink their numbers by shifting the context of the debate away from the political battlefield. Influencing individual behavior and responsibility before the fact rather than after should be promoted in the home, not on the stump, and not at the end of a gun.