Wednesday, April 18, 2007

The Supreme Court has ruled on partial birth abortion

Rightly so, in my opinion.

Key point:

"The liberal dissenters have not merely made a minor logical error here. Take their argument seriously for a moment. They claim that it is conceivable that in some cases, partial-birth abortion is the safest method of abortion, and therefore it has to be allowed. (And it has to be allowed whether or not the pregnancy itself threatens the mother’s health.) They further claim that it should make no difference to anyone where the child’s feet are positioned when he is aborted.

Let’s apply this argument to infanticide. It is conceivable that in some cases removing the child from the womb completely before killing it is the safest option. And surely it should make no difference to any rational person whether the infant was fully within the womb, partly inside it, or all the way out when his skull is crushed? Four justices on the Supreme Court have accepted all the premises for a constitutional right to infanticide. They lack only the nerve to take their reasoning to its logical conclusion."


I do not support a complete ban on abortion, but it's pretty clear that society has a compelling moral right to regulate this particular aspect.

The "unfettered abortion on demand" crowd needs to tone down their absolutist and inflammatory rhetoric.

This decision probably won't do that for them.

1 comment:

  1. The choice gang will hardly tone down their rhetoric between now and election day 2008 irregardless of the GOP nominee. To the contrary they will probably be even more boisterous. The upside to their advocating this barbaric infantacide will be that it will turn off a significant portion of the undecided moderates/