There’s an discussion going on over at CultureCat, where Clancy has responded to Ayelet Waldman’s essay that both Lauren and I quoted from. I’d be participating if I weren’t up against a deadline.

Clancy’s done far more work with pro-choice and feminist rhetoric than I have, and she makes a solid point in saying that using real body terms such as "kill" and "child" reinforce the pro-life stance. (And she's also right in pointing out that the pro-life movement desperately needs a Lakoff.)

How rhetorically effective is it to say, "yes, it's killing (in some cases), but I should have the legal right to do it because I'm acting on my values and my personal truth"? I can already hear chilling, flippant responses from some who lack sympathy for the position, along the lines of the "who among the unwanted will be the next to be declared disposable" line of thinking Kissling cites, only far less sincere: "So I can kill gays and lesbians because to do so is to act on my values? Yay!" And exactly how will such a shades-of-grey pro-choice rhetoric be more "relevant to the contemporary world"?

I won’t argue with that, since it’s exactly what would happen. But my question is: How is that any different from what’s being said now anyway by pro-choice advocates? Has the rhetorical tack that we’ve been taking - removing body language, "terminating" "clusters of cells" - worked? (I’ll leave the issue of honoring women’s truths out of this, because the main pragmatic concern here is keeping abortion legal.) I’m not sure. Abortion is legal now, but more people are dying every day to keep it that way and our rights are steadily being eroded.
Pro-choice rhetoric suffers from the same problem copyfight rhetoric does: polarization. In each area, two diametrically opposed camps develop symbiotic opposition, feeding off of each other's discourse and further distancing everyone involved. There is no middle ground in the arena, and that leaves no room for resolution. It also situates the participants in a smackdown environment where somebody eventually has to lose.
Ayelet’s essay occupies that rare middle ground, placing abortion within the context of real, living, feeling, bleeding bodies. It calls it what it is, and explains why it is absolutely, irrevocably, a necessary right. The Clinton administration made steps toward this same stance with its abortion and education legislation, by embracing the "Safe, Legal, and Rare" rhetoric. Abortion rates dropped. Now that we’re back to a more polarized debate, rates and tensions are higher again.
Middle ground is a somewhat utopian hope, since extreme advocates of either side will never come around. I also think it’s an achievable hope for a moderate majority. How we get there ... that, I don’t know.