According to Supreme Court Justice Ruth “Buzzy” Ginsburg, in her dissenting opinion on Gonzalez v. Carhart, the partial-birth abortion decision this week, abortion is central to women’s lives.
Now imagine that you’re speaking to an anthrolopogist, who has just returned from a visit to a previously undiscovered primitive tribal community on a remote island in the South Pacific. If he reports that the ability to bear children is a central factor in the lives of the tribe’s women, you might figure that you’d met another one of those remarkable social scientists who has found a way to earn a salary by saying the blatantly obvious. But if he told you that the right to kill their own children was central to those women, you’d have to conclude that the island is a terrible place, populated by bloodthirsty pagan savages, and any sane traveler should stay away.
Note, too, the comment on the post by “humpty dumpty”:
One notes that when President Bush signed this legislation, he was surrounded by white males, none of whom had experienced pregnancy.
This was a majority decision by five male Catholics.
Those five haved sowed the wind, they may reap the whirlwind as Catholic Chieff Justice Taney, a Maryland slave owner, did, when he solved the “slave problem” by his Dred Scott dicta, and brought on the Civil War.
My response, which I doubt will make it through because Phil doesn’t want personal repartee in the Sound Off area: Because only a woman (who can have a pregnancy!) can decide whether jabbing scissors into a baby’s neck and sucking his brains out should be illegal. Why must liberals always go right for the bleeding obvious anti-male anti-white baloney? Oh right, because their entire proposition is intellectually bankrupt.
Technorati Tags: abortion | partial-birth abortion | Supreme Court | Constitution |
