A solution to the abortion debate.

The problem with the abortion debate right now is that it's stale.

It is. You've got my side, insisting that bodily sovereignty is a human right, and the other side, insisting that anything that can be even broadly defined as a human life should not be killed. And they're at a standstill, each trying to force into legislative concrete what is really a philosophical position. Of course, my side is right, because if something is subjective, each individual should be free to act according to the dictates of their own conscience. Of course, the other side thinks they must legislate restrictions on abortions, since their principles dictate that it is not subjective at all.
Thus, we're at ends. The side that has more members, more political power, is more sympathetic to the media at the current moment is granted the upper hand. There is no debate. There is only struggle.

So let's end the detante. Let's add a third player. Let's have pro-life, pro-choice, and pro-infanticide. That way, there is some common ground. If we actually have a group of people making an argument for infanticide, perhaps it will inject some life into this tug-of-war, and actually turn a fight into an argument. Groups with common ground are more able to listen and exchange ideas than those who know their viewpoints are diametrically opposed.

And the common ground would be infanticide. Anti.

In fact, both could unite to stop infanticide, using different means. What we need is an infanticide debate. It does happen. If the media could be persuaded to focus on baby stranglings, burnings, poisonings, and smotherings, for a few days- perhaps causing a hysteria like the child-abduction hysteria of a few summers ago. Then, a reasoned, thoughtful, sympathetic pro-infanticide pundit, backed by a group of supporters, might begin to raise questions about the vaunted western (nay, human!) tradition of infanticide.

Points for Infanticide over Abortion
-It's cheaper (does not require surgical procedure)
-Possible to do painlessly (allows administration of anasthetic)
-Can be done without doctor's involvement (physicians would be delighted to not have to be refered to as "baby-killers" anymore)
-Puts fathers even ground with mothers (father's rights advocates rejoice)

Now, of course, these are absurd points. Very. Very.

But, convincingly argued, they'd trick some fringe members of the groups. Pro-lifers already believe that pro-choice folks discount the lives of 'children'. So they'd buy it.

Common ground would be found. Pro-choicers could cry out about preventing the death of innocent babies, the destruction of families, that unwanted pregnancies can bring. Pro-lifers would decry the practice as well. They could join hands and rally together. And maybe they could talk about what death and life really are.