Last, but not least, there is the question of enforcement. Outlawing abortion will not significantly change societal attitudes--women who would have legal abortions today would still want illegal ones tomorrow. The pro-life movement will have to deal with that, and with the specter of abortion black markets and back-alley butchers. In practice, it just might be that the costs of abortion laws would far outweigh the benefits.

THERE'S A larger lesson to be learned here about attempts to incorporate morality into politics. It is not enough to say only that abortion is wrong, for our legal code isn't simply a list of "Thou shalt nots." The questions the abortion issue raises are perplexing enough in the realm of abstract morality, but trying to translate them into concrete legal doctrines requires a Hercules of jurisprudence. If arrogant abortion foes like New York Archbishop John J. O'Connor actually tried to answer these questions, they would realize that the issue isn't so clear-cut, and perhaps they would be more humble about making political pronouncements.

This is not meant to imply that people who believe abortion is wrong cannot act on the basis of their beliefs. They are morally obligated to do so. But they cannot claim that their arguments are based on anything other than morality, and because they quickly run into insurmountable legal dilemmas in answering the questions that come up, they must operate extra-legally.

If the pro-lifers simply attempt to change societal attitudes toward abortion through persuasion, they will not only have more credibility, but they will have more success. After all, once the issue of choice is removed, no one really likes abortion: it is physically excruciating and humiliating, often leaving permanent emotional scars. It only exists because women regard it as a lesser evil than bearing unwanted children.

The pro-lifers' first task, then, is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Complete mandatory programs of sex education and readily available birth control would go a long way toward achieving this end. Too many pregnancies result from sheer ignorance. If more teenagers were taught how to use contraceptives properly, fewer of them would fail to use them. If more teenagers were completely informed about the realities of abortion, fewer would regard it as an easy alternative. And if more teenagers were taught not merely how babies are made, but what the responsibilities of baby-making are, more would be able to make informed adult choices.

Contrary to The Rev. Jerry Falwell's protestations, sex education does not endorse premarital sex; it merely recognizes that premarital sex exists. If the Moral Majority wants to prevent teenagers from having sex, they should fight not abortion or sex education--but the onset of puberty.

Of course, education alone won't prevent all unwanted pregnancies. Accordingly, another goal of the pro-life movement should be to make it easier for pregnant women to choose to bear their children.

Much of the motivation for abortion arises from the social stigma attached to unmarried pregnant women, especially peer pressure-prone teenagers. If those women were treated with concern and respect instead of being regarded as sinners, perhaps they would not be nearly as willing to have abortions.

Of course, institutionalized compassion throughout society would deprive demagogues like Falwell of a prime opportunity for moral posturing. But if pro-lifers' first priority really is the lives of fetuses, it is a price they will gladly pay.

Of course, changing society's attitudes overnight is impossible, and resorting to extra-legal means won't eliminate abortion entirely. But considering the difficulty of instituting and enforcing a legal prohibition of abortion, an extra-legal pro-life movement would probably be much more effective in preventing abortions without abridging anyone's freedom of choice. And to a true pro-lifer, preventing more abortions is all that matters.