Considering the stakes and the profound values at play, most abortion "debates" -- those hyped-up events between your college's pro-choice and the pro-life clubs -- are pretty insipid affairs. It's just the nature of the issue: you can only define "zygote" and "personhood" so many times before, eventually, you trip over your own repetitive arguments, and the audience once again fails to learn anything new.

So I was surprised by just how incisive this discussion in Slate has become, even more so because it's just between two avowed pro-choicers.

The topic is whether the abortion-rights movement ought to embrace the view that abortions are "tragic," even "bad" (though not "wrong"), as a way of decisively solidifying their coalition against the Roe backlash. It's a view that's been around for a while, but has recently gained traction thanks to Hillary Clinton's visible adoption of this strategy in her speeches. Advocating this stance is veteran ethics-writer Will Saletan, who is one of the most masterful and balanced writers on abortion. Rebutting him is firebrand Nation columnist Katha Pollitt. She argues that using the "bad" label all but conceeds the judgementalism she sees from the pro-life side. The discussion weaves it's way from a policy discussion about contraception and sex education (on which they largely agree) to a spar over poll numbers, their meaning, and whether public policy should lead or follow public opinion. Their mutual respect for one another is obvious, but it never gets in the way of exchanging some funny verbal biffs.

No matter where you stand on the issue of abortion, I highly recommend their conversation (make sure you start on "Wednesday").