What does it say about the disposition of this nation's abortion debate when Orange County clinics are increasing security measures? What progress has been made when Paul Hill and John C. Salvi III defend the sanctity of life by killing others? What it says is the time has come to stop coddling hope that the political arena is capable of promoting a rational discussion of the issue.

If anything, the political context of the abortion debate has proven that a nation governed in part by a judicial separation of church and state, and which has yet to discern the relationship between women's rights and the rights of the unborn, cannot produce an enforceable moral absolute or legislation that satisfies the convictions of both sides.

Since Roe vs. Wade, the political theater has served only to reveal the wanting context and structure of the arguments pressed by pro-choice and anti-abortion advocates.

On the one hand, "pro-life" proponents dogmatically press for its eradication by law under principles of religious doctrine. This is certainly protected speech under the Constitution. Nevertheless, outlawing abortion based upon religious doctrine destroys the fabric of church and state separation, as established by the U.S. Supreme Court. That means circumventing the Constitution, the very document which guarantees the free practice of their faith.

In their zeal to protect a woman's right to control the reproductive function of her body--and that is a right--pro-choice advocates habitually place the mantle of choice at the wrong end of the equation. Too often they dismiss as irrelevant personal responsibility with respect to sexual activity and whatever right to life an unborn child has. Moreover, the rubric they call choice (read: abortion) is too often portrayed as the only legitimate option.

Real progress and understanding in the abortion debate can only come when the debate itself is removed from the political arena and is predicated on two fundamental assumptions:

* Abortion is an option of last resort.

* A long-term reduction in the number of abortions (not by law, not by religious dogma, but by choice) is a desirable end.

On their face, these assumptions imply an equation for reducing the number of abortions (good news for pro-life advocates) by individual choice, rather than at the hands of religious doctrine or written law (good news for pro-choice advocates.)