This is from Sarah Blustain’s article on McCain’s strong anti-abortion stance:
McCain may or may not truly understand the broader definition of “pro-life,” which these days also includes opposition to traditional and emergency contraception, family-planning, euthanasia, and related federal funding both here and abroad. (Playing the bumbling fool and satisfying no one is certainly an easier escape than trying to satisfy all.)
Does it? If it does, I’m guessing that most people who identify as “pro-life” aren’t “pro-life.” Now, if I were not “pro-life,” I can see why I’d want to narrow the definition of “pro-life” as much as possible — except I don’t see what you’re gaining if you decide, somewhat arbitrarily, that many millions of people who adamantly oppose legal abortion, or, say, legal abortion after the first trimester, are not actually “pro-life.” They won’t become “pro-choice” allies. Rather, they’ll be floating around totally confused as to why they are no longer considered “pro-life.”
A lot of the positions Sarah Blustain finds objectionable strike me as reasonable on grounds of subsidiarity, but of course I’m far more sympathetic to those who want to sharply reduce the number of abortions, so that’s hardly surprising.