The A-Word again...

Liberals should consider supporting a constitutional amendment to supersede Roe v. Wade, incorporating a compromise that would guarantee abortion rights into the second trimester, but outlawing abortion thereafter except for the sake of preserving the mother's life or health. I see no objection to writing abortion law into the constitution, since it already resides there, according to Roe v. Wade. A constitutional amendment would have to embody -- and would be perceived to embody -- a broad-based consensus on the topic. And it would remove the issue from the arena of judicial appointments, where it currently wreaks so much havoc.

From Part One of a multi-part sequence about the topic from L2R, a group blog.

This snip is from the second in the series...

...my guess is that only religious opponents of abortion tend to be single-issue voters. But secular objections to abortion give people reason to feel alienated from a political party that appears to view the practice as morally unproblematic. That view of abortion strikes them as not morally serious; to borrow a term from the philosopher Rosalind Hursthouse (subscription required), it strikes them as "light-minded".

I think they are right. The abortion-rights movement has displayed a lamentable degree of light-mindedness. If defenders of abortion-rights want to be successful in the long run, they will have to get more serious about moral complexities of the issue.

I have not plowed through all this. There is a vast amount of material that takes a long time to read.
For the abortion debate there should be no limit to the amount of reading and study that are required. The topic is much too important. I link it here for future reference, as I have also saved the link in my own "Abortion Debate" folder.

[Aside: Thanks to The Fly Bottle for a great link to L2R regarding the SS debate. Looking around at the rest of the blog led me to the above link. The SS piece is also excellent. Will Wilkinson is one good blogger.]