Using his Twitter account and the Lifeway Research Blog, Ed Stetzer recently lamented the claps and cheers of affirmation that occurred at the Democratic National Convention whenever the subject of abortion was mentioned. In the blog post he makes a point I also heard recently in an interview conducted by WORLD News Group:

In 1992, President Clinton talked about making abortion “safe, legal, and rare.” Now the DNC cheers its mention– dozens of times– and never mentions the “rare.” Perhaps the cheering points shows us that the “rare” part was just a talking point from another era.

It is no secret that I am pro-life. However, there are obviously people who disagree with me. But, if you are going to be pro-choice, at least don’t cheer the idea– at least long to make abortion “rare.”

(Incidentally, the number of times Bill Clinton has been positively referenced by republicans in the past two weeks is a disturbing and ironic point for another day.)

Stetzer and others take issue with democrats’ willingness to celebrate their party’s position on abortion and they associate this with a celebration of the procedure itself. On a certain level, I agree with them about how heartbreaking it is that, in our own first-world and highly-educated country, so many people affirm such a devastating moral choice. But on another level, I don’t think we should be surprised by this cheering or even ask them to stop or to reinsert the word “rare” into their party platform.

Former president Bill Clinton’s inclusion of the word “rare” may initially sound like a good thing because who wouldn’t affirm language promoting fewer abortions? But, as is often the case (and Clinton is a master at this) the inclusion of this appealing language is actually detrimental to the pro-life position because it allows the focus of the debate to be shifted from the real question to a false one.

Here’s my theory, and I admit it’s only that: A logically consistent pro-choice position is morally abhorrent to a vast majority of Americans. Therefore, what Clinton and others create with the addition of the word “rare” is a position that, while logically indefensible, is vastly more appealing to the masses because of the conscience-dulling effect it can have.

The reality of what is an abortion can be reduced to two options based on one point of fact: either a human fetus (at any stage of development) is a living human person or it is not. If it is, then abortion at any phase of development, regardless of the circumstances, is the taking of an innocent human life. If a fetus is not a living person then an abortion is a medical procedure no scientifically different than cutting your fingernails, pulling out some hair, or (most closely) the resulting discharge of a woman’s monthly reproductive cycle.

Let’s make the logical jump from each “reality” to a coherent position on the matter. If an embryo is not a human person, then abortion, at every point in embryonic development, should be an unrestrained right. If the only human person in the equation is the mother it is absolutely unreasonable and unethical for anyone to restrict her decision.

I should pause here to connect this back to the DNC. If this is the view of reality in play it makes perfect sense that people would cheer pro-abortion statements. If the only human person in the equation is the mother, the restriction of her decisions about her own body do amount to a violation of civil rights. It is perfectly reasonable to cheer rhetoric which affirms human rights and denounces those who would violate them. Pro-lifers shouldn’t be confused, surprised, or even particularly discouraged when it happens. The cheering of pro-choice politicians is, in this reality, more logical than the inclusion of the word “rare.”

Now look to the other possible reality. When a fetus is a human person from the moment of conception (Psalm 139:13-16) different logical consequences follow because the mother is no longer the only human person in the equation. Though it has no voice to speak for itself there is a real person, created in the image of God, living in her womb. She may not have made a conscious choice to bring that child to life in her womb, but neither did the child.

Also, thinking logically, because we (rightly) don’t allow the circumstances of conception to inform our position on infanticide – even circumstances as horrific as rape and incest – we cannot logically allow them to inform our position on abortion. Thus, in this reality, abortion cannot be allowed under any circumstances because it is actually the termination of an innocent human life.

Getting back to my theory: When the debate is framed around a choice between these two realities, and their logical consequences, the moral decision involved becomes the centerpiece of the discussion. The position that an embryo is not a human person is Biblically indefensible and, at best, becomes less scientifically so nearly every day.

Thus, a person must either accept that there are some innocent human persons who are not entitled to life or they must support a consistent pro-life position. The key is that there are only two logical options.

What the language of “rare” does is to create a third option. It’s not a logically defensible option, but it capitalizes on a weakness of human thinking. When people are faced with a moral choice they don’t like they’ll settle for whatever way out (regardless of logic) they can find. They’d rather be logically incoherent than to admit as true position they don’t want to be true.

The language of “safe, legal, and rare,” like the language of “pro-life with exceptions,” claims the following: 1) abortion must be an option because it’s a human rights issue for the mother 2) it’s an unfortunate option and we all should long for fewer abortions to take place. This is logically incomprehensible. If the embryo is not a human person no one should care if abortions are rare or common. If the embryo is a human person then the “rare” termination of an innocent human life is as morally reprehensible as allowing it to happen 1,200,000 times a year (as in the US in 2008).

I think we should avoid encouraging anyone to use the language which promotes “rare” abortions because this language allows the debate to be framed in all the wrong terms. The right question is “Is an embryo a human person?” and it receives the same answer from Scripture as it does from science: “yes.” Pro-lifers should be winsome and compassionate as we discuss the issue but we should not allow anyone (pro-life or pro-choice) to be satisfied with a logically untenable position. Rather than react with shock and outrage when they cheer for abortion let’s instead find individuals who do and ask them why they’re cheering. Perhaps that question might lead to the first compassionate and logical discussion on the matter they’ve ever encountered.