In a recent post, I suggested that if the pro-life movement lies about holding the fetus having an equal right to life as an adult, so does the left about their motives for protecting abortion. My suggestion was that the fire of the pro-abortion/pro-choice movement was hiding their real motive. Commenter jpe writes (defending the fire):
An analogy: property rights folks go nuts-o if an EPA bureaucrat tells them what they can do with their property, and doubly so if the proximate cause is the protection of some endangered species or other. The same intuition underlies the force of both. They only differ in the location of the objection, be it the body or one’s real property.
But we don’t go nuts when the government takes property, or even life with due process in general. The question is why is due process so far out of bounds and beyond the pale regarding abortion? Again, why the fire? The objections above are case specific, they are not tied to the right of the government to judge these things in principle, just that they did wrongly in specific cases. The same would be in the abortion adjudicated by jurist. There may be objections in specific cases, but why the general objection in principle?
Frequent commenter Jewish Atheist writes:
Your the crowd that inveighs against slippery slope arguments. Tell me, what problem do you specifically have against my view on correct political solution to the abortion question, court approval is required. Why is that so odious?
Really? So some bible-thumping judge in Georgia will have the power to refuse abortions as he sees fit? That scares the hell out of me.
Again, this is largely a smoke screen. See above, we object to the particular judgements of jurists in particular cases, like perhaps the above suggestion regarding EPA or seizure, we object to individual cases but however we don’t object to the right of the state to do so in principle.
Presumably there is not just “one” judge in Georgia. And besides, in my past postings on abortion and due process I never suggested the jurist had the right to outright refuse the abortion, just that he could assign barriers, such as community service, cash, or other such objects so that the state might be reassured that the person requesting the abortion is not doing this lightly. Granted this is not the normal thing that abortion opponents seek, but I fail to see the principled objection to that idea.
On the other hand there is a shortage of children compared to the supply of those willing or seeking children for adoption.
There is also a possibility that the abortion supporters hold their position so fervently because they are trying to deny and re-write via law that there are differences between the sexes. Women bear children. How unfair, although to which side this is unfair is less clear to me than it seems the left.