What exactly is the huge tragedy that has befallen us because of legal abortion? If it is death of babies, that isn’t as much of a tragedy as the millions of people who have died because of poverty and starvation throughout the world. If it as an offense before God, then let Him punish the guilty. If you yourself have had an abortion legally and now feel that you should have not been legally allowed to do so then perhaps you have a legitimate grievance against the SCOTUS decision.

Why is it that people of all political persuasions want to use the power of the Government to enforce their own code of ethics and behavior upon another person? The only logical argument that the fetus is a person, a human being, and most importantly a Citizen of the United States and thus entitled to the protection of the government at the expense of the mother has never been made. It is an appeal to emotion, belief, and the choice of the mother. That isn’t a sound legal basis. What makes Roe v. Wade bad law is that it doesn’t define the moment in which the fetus is no longer tissue belonging to the mother but is in fact a citizen and thus entitled to the preservation of its life.

I myself am pro legal abortion. What I am against is killing babies. Thus partial-birth is illegal and early termination of pregnancy is not. The stupidity and vapidity of the generalized pro-life argument is to force a woman to serve the interests of “society” and of the eventual-baby without giving her a choice in the matter. At what point does an unwanted zygote become a baby? At what point does the power of the gov’t come in and enforce someone other than the mother’s will?

There is no right or wrong in the mother’s decision. That is a loaded judgment which is as shallow as saying that Allah commands the faithful to subjugate and kill the unbelievers. As long as the Republican base remains wedded to pro-life as a basic creed it will remain as dependent on religious fundamentalism as surely as Iran is wedded to its clerics.

Viscount_Bolingbroke on January 22, 2008 at 4:00 PM

Very nice, Gianni. Keep up that sort of chauvinistic attitude. I’m sure it wins lots of female admirers. Well, maybe of a certain kind. Seriously, though: Why make it all the mother’s fault? What if the man she had sex with had a faulty condom? What if she simply doesn’t want to bring an unwanted child into the world? How is it no longer her choice what to do since she “opened her legs”?

As an aside, I’m using _mother_ here as the general term for the woman who is pregnant. Nothing more or less.

Viscount_Bolingbroke on January 22, 2008 at 8:32 PM

Lol, lib. I suppose I *am* in that I idolize Reagan, only voted for R Prez candidates, and believe in making life better for all of humanity. To answer your only relevant question and ignore your red herring; Faulty condoms allow sperm into a woman’s uterus potentially without her knowledge or consent. Thus impregnating her if she is capable of it at the time. Generally speaking, a woman will eventually have a baby inside her if she continues being pregnant. I thought people learned these lessons from their parents/teachers/pastors/politicians/etc.

Viscount_Bolingbroke on January 22, 2008 at 11:38 PM