For a long time abortion has been taboo on old-fashioned daytime soap operas. An article not long ago in Soap Opera Digest noted that at that point, after six decades, “a genre known — and often lauded for — tackling controversial social issues first (had featured) exactly six abortions.” The article’s author put this in sudsy perspective: “There were more characters who came back from the dead in this year alone.” There’s a reason for that: People are uncomfortable with abortion. People feel the pain, and want to be kind to those who find themselves in tough, frightening situations — but most don’t desire or instinctively support abortion. For that reason, I can’t imagine Nip/Tuck playing a storyline like this any other way than pro-life. A casual, thoughtless abortion would have turned off the audience, a natural revulsion. And by showing this reticence, Nip/Tuck — whether its writers intended it or not — has done a public service. It speaks to those in pain; it makes the normal feel normal. And it reflects where we are better than most political speeches ever could. The United States has neither a decided pro-life nor a pro-choice majority, but folks are leaning toward wanting some restrictions on abortion. There’s room for compromise — for persuasion and common ground. But there is also a place for shame. Shame that comes from the fact that the majority of Down Syndrome children are aborted. Nip/Tuck gives a stat like that some humanity. As painful as life with adversity will be for Julia and Sean’s son and for those who love him, he is someone’s child worthy of love, who possesses great potential and gifts to give, and deserves protection. That’s an important message because for many a family it’s no fiction. Nip/Tuck, God bless it — even with all its immorality and downright nonsense–got a real pain and shame out on the table in its season premiere. The mass abortion of the disabled is a great shame — one we need to nip, not tuck away and pretend isn’t real. – Kathryn Jean Lopez is the editor of National Review Online. Copyright 2006, Newspaper Enterprise Assn.