Religion & Law

In a previous post I maintained that most people do not think that first trimester abortions are murder (though they regard them as morally problematic), that they believe the moral seriousness of abortion increases in the course of fetal development, that a significant reason for such beliefs is that the existence of a brain and the central nervous system sharply distinguishes babies from first trimester fetuses, and that if first trimester abortions are not murder, there is little basis for privileging the abortion issue over other serious moral issues. I am grateful to John and Michael for responding to this post. I would note that both do not respond to the point that killing a human being with a brain and a central nervous system is more serious than killing a human organism that could develop biologically.
John responds by suggesting that the assumption that most people do not think abortion is murder is problematic.  He cites an essay by the President of a pro life organization citing polls where persons in high numbers (between thirty eight and fifty seven per cent, most appear to be in the high forty per cent range) regard abortion as murder. I am surprised at the high numbers. I think the numbers would go down if persons were asked whether first trimester abortions were murders (how much I do not know). And I wonder how seriously to take some of the responses given that most do not want to prosecute women for hiring hit men in the abortion context and most would tolerate exceptions to an abortion ban that would not be permitted if abortion were thought to be murder (For reflections on the rape exception, see Sherry Colb,http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20070711.html).  But I think the numbers are impressive.
In one post Michael shows a picture of a fetus late in the fifth month. Anti-abortion advocates do not post pictures of a fetus in the first trimester because I think they understand that most people would be less moved (I believe because they think that increased fetal development correspondingly makes the abortion more problematic in the minds of their audience). In another post Michael say he does not care what most people think. What most people think is no guarantee of truth. He maintains an obligation to tell the truth. I would have liked to have heard how he would try to persuade those who are repelled by the murder claim, those who believe that killing a human organism without nerves or a brain is not the same as killing a baby.
Of course,  I acknowledge the desirability of speaking the truth as you see it. But I believe the shrillness of the murder rhetoric often associated with anti-abortion advocates (this is not a slap at Michael) has significant political costs. The shrillness with which it is usually presented unnecessarily puts people on the defensive and causes them to circle the wagons. It is polarizing. The tone should be different in a divided society that has considerable agreement about the desirability of reducing abortions.  Shrill rhetoric (truthful or not) can energize a base (and that is often necessary), but it is highly unlikely to persuade the millions in the middle.