So far as abortion goes there is a distinction between an absolutist position and a pragmatic one, and that is a distinction that transcends the division between people who'd describe themselves as pro-life and as pro choice.

What I mean is, it is possible to see the issue as one about fundamental non-negotiable human rights - a right to choose for one side, and a right to life for the other. On the other hand it can be seen in terms of the political decisions made in a particular society, based on the beliefs of the people in that society, decisions which can change.

It seems to me that the only practical way for a democratic society to resolve these matters is to adopt the latter view. The absolute view is a matter for the private realm - no matter how the law may change, the right to choose or the right to life, as a moral imperative on individuals, or on members of a religious or ethical community is not affected. But the legal position in a democratic society has to be based on the settled will of that society.

And in real terms that is the actual situation. That even applies where the process of determining that settled will is carried out through constitutional interpretations, rather than through legislation - constitutions are, after all, subject to alteration.

My point is that it is wiser and healthier to see these disagreements in this way when it comes to matter of law, as being pragmatic, and distinguish this from the argument about morality, where the absolutist positions are more relevant.