In this Bloggingheads conversation between BeliefNet's Steven Waldman and Slate's William Saletan, two dudes demonstrate why two dudes should not film themselves talking off-the-cuff about abortion for an hour. They call the segment "Two Men, No Uteruses." Waldman and Saletan putting their headsets together to figure out how to convince women not to be so aborty? I call it torture.

Broadsheet's Amy Benfer sums up the low point of the dialogue, which begins around the 26-minute mark:

The topic, once again, is abortion reduction, a topic dear to both men’s hearts. This time, Waldman brings it back to wondering why women with an unplanned pregnancy aren’t cool with adoption. He starts off with a very good point: Most adoption policy focuses on incentives to adoptive couples, while virtually ignoring the women who will actually be carrying those children to term. He concedes that, “It’s an awfully big thing to ask the mother to carry a baby to term so that someone else can raise it.” Yep, glad we can all agree on that. But then he veers into outright lunacy. “I know this dangerous territory,” he says, “but I’ll just throw it out there.” OK, Steve, just throw it out there.

Waldman’s modest proposal goes like this: “Someone is three months pregnant, we say, ‘Just go another six months.’” Right. Just go ahead and go through that whole thing called pregnancy, with that thing called childbirth at the end. Hey, you can’t even get an associate degree in six months! Why not spend that time incubating another person’s child as a womb-for-rent? But, he acknowledges, there are problems: “You might have to drop out of school, drop out of a job, as well as taking a huge health risk.”

. . . And how much does he think that woman’s time is worth? “Maybe we should pay her, say, a thousand dollars. I don’t know what the right number is, because you don’t want to create a financial incentive for babies.” Because that would be baby-selling. Also, if we learned anything from the Reagan years, it’s that poor women will pop out children for cash given any opportunity. (Even if that incentive works out to a little more than $100 per month of pregnancy.)

This is too much, it seems, even for Saletan, who seems floored. (And for the record, though I’ve disagreed with him in the past, in this instance, he doesn’t really deserve to get tarred for Waldman’s display of pure idiocy). He points out, rightly, that Waldman’s proposal isn’t so far off from a kind of “national surrogacy policy.” But then he says, “It feels a little bit icky to me.”

Waldman agrees, “As the words are coming out of my mouth, they taste a little funny.”

Watching conversations like this probably won't dissuade any women from choosing abortion. But it might just help those women realize that the people who claim to care most about what comes out of your uterus have no fucking idea what's going on in there before the thing pops out.

Waldman cites a 2007 Third Way study which found that "69 percent of Americans believe abortion is the 'taking of a human life,' but 72 percent believe it should be legal." Waldman attributes the statistic to the idea that most people believe that "some living things are more alive than others, and so the later in the pregnancy it gets, the more uncomfortable people become with the idea of ending it. . . . they believe both that a life stirs very early on and that a one-week-old embryo is more 'killable' than a nine-month-old fetus."

The idea of "gradations of life" has not been particularly embraced by either side in the political turf war over abortion: Pro-lifers have focused on preventing all post-conception fetus elimination, while pro-choicers have underscored a woman's right to choose at any time. But as Waldman points out, Roe v. Wade legislated specifically when women should have the right to choose, based on how baby-like her fetus has become: Roe "gave an inviolable legal right to abortion in the first trimester, allowed for certain restrictions in the second trimester, and actually allowed states to ban abortion in the third trimester."

In Waldman's "Fantasy of a Less Toxic Abortion Debate," those on both side of the abortion debate would "embrace the safe-legal-early doctrine." Here's what Waldman's fantasy would look like:

Pro-choicers who accepted this framework would be implicitly conceding that, for at least part of the pregnancy, there's a "baby" in the womb—and the woman's right to terminate that life is neither absolute nor nine months in duration. With early abortions not only legal but easier, pro-choice activists could then have the confidence to accept what many of them have publicly avoided but privately wanted: reasonable, tightly written prohibitions on third trimester abortions while genuinely protecting the life of the mother.

Open minded pro-lifers would take note of these concessions from their "enemies," viewing them as a sign that these pro-choicers—far from being hideous baby killers—fully embrace a moral dimension to the abortion decision.

Meanwhile, any pro-lifers who accept this framework would be making a concession, too. They'd be saying, in effect, that if the other side can concede that something precious is alive—and becoming more alive with each day—then they could, in turn, acknowledge that reasonable people, of different faiths, can disagree about when exactly that baby becomes alive enough to have legal rights.

I understand that Waldman is trying to make nice. I, too, would like to see us all find common ground on abortion. But while Waldman thinks that will come with acknowledging that there are "gradations of life" in the womb. I think it starts with acknowledging the life of the woman.

Remember her? She's the one who's pregnant with the thing somewhere in between a "clump of undifferentiated cells" and a nine-month-old "baby" ready to pop out into a human. The fetus is in her womb—she knows what's going on in there, and she takes that into consideration in deciding if and when to have an abortion. The moral question of determining the life of the fetus isn't made in a vacuum—it's made in the context of another life.

In order to find common ground, pro-choicers don't need to acknowledge that fetuses are "babies," and pro-lifers don't need to deny that for them, life begins at conception. Both positions are valid. A pregnant woman should be free to choose between them.

[Via Slate's XX Factor]

FINALLY: FIANCEE TURNS BABYDADDY, says Sharon Cobb, who thinks the whole blessed holy matrimony schtick Palin paraded the kids around for was just some racist bullshit to begin with:

Why is it that when a white teenage woman gets pregnant out of wedlock it's a 'blessed event' and the father is the 'fiancé,' but a person of color is someone we think of as someone on welfare and the man is just the baby daddy? . . . Racism. Alive and sick in America. That's the difference, and had the Obamas had an 18 year old daughter who was pregnant during the election, you know damn well the stereotypes would have run rampant.

Cobb ends her smack-down by sending Bristol some well-wishes: "Hopefully, her baby daddy former flame will participate as a father."

LEVI SEES TRIP, Bristol says and AP reports: "Levi sees the baby whenever he wants, the family sees the baby whenever they want," family spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton told the news org. "Bristol is not preventing anybody from seeing Tripp at any point in time."

AP IS ALL OVER THIS BRISVI SHIT: The motives of Mercede Johnston, or "Sadie" to Stapleton, have come into question. Stapleton "speculated money was involved in the tabloid interview," saying that "the fact that it is a tabloid and a soft interview, there could be an incentive to say things. . . . We don't even know if Sadie said that." Martin Gould, senior executive editor for Star, the magazine that published the Sadie interview, "declined to say if Mercede Johnston was paid to speak to the Star. But he said the report was accurate."

WHAT WILL LEVI DO WITH HIS "BRISTOL" RING TATTOO? No, really, what is this dude going to do about that. Cover it with a real wedding ring?

COULD BRISTOL'S SPLIT HELP PALIN'S FUTURE? "These are not the kind of news stories that Palin might hope for, adding to earlier controversies over her fondness for expensive clothes and use of public money for family holidays that have consistently dogged her. Yet once again she is back in the news, and in media-saturated America that gives her an enormous strength that few within the flailing and defeated Republican party can emulate."

BRISTOL AND LEVI WERE DOOMED, Chicago Tribune reports. Dooooomed, I tell you!:

"Despite high expectations, less than 8 percent of teen mothers marry the baby's father within one year of the birth," said Bill Albert, chief program officer for the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. "That is magical thinking. It almost never happens."

Steve Waldman over at Beliefnet wonders if Bristol should have put Tripp up for adoption. Along the way, he actually admits that he thinks a former Vice Presidential candidate's seventeen years old indignation over fictional unwed mother Murphy Brown was spot-on. "I dunno. I was with Dan Quayle on that one," he writes. Awesome.