Starting with the first sentence:
Like anything that involves killing babies, abortion tends to be controversial, and remains so in Canada more than 40 years after a bunch of white males decided to relax the common-law restraints on this practice. It is controversial in other countries, too: check out the United States, for instance, or the various European countries, in most of which it has long been “open season” on the unborn.
And it is a splendid column carrying on throughout. Killing babies remains a very difficult thing to defend, done only with the special sort of politically correct gymnastics of those who call abortions “abortion care”–nice try. But when I read this sort of fine column and I understand that I have logic, science and clearly, some good writers on my side, I get depressed because in the end, we do not live in a pro-life country. BUT THEN, I think, how much more depressing to be pro-choice–without logic or science on your side, just a very apathetic media and a couple of old-school feminists who won’t be around much longer. (Editor’s note: Very uncharitable, Andrea, shouldn’t that remain your “inside voice?”)
by 
Obama’s desire to repeal “Don’t ask, don’t tell” can actually help to fulfill the “days of Lot” (Luke 17, cf. Gen. 19), the fulfillment of which will hurry up the return of the Heavenly Commander-in-Chief who will make all things straight (pun intended)! Interesting Google articles include “Obama Supports Public Depravity,” “Separation of Raunch and State” and “David Letterman’s Hate Etc.”
For some dessert visit Yahoo and type in “Obama Avoids Bible Verses.”
PS – You’re invited to use these new pro-life slogans: “Unborn babies should have the right to keep and bear arms – and legs and ears and eyes etc.!” and “Unborn babies should have the same right to be born alive that abortionists had!”
Those are some of the worst slogans I have ever heard, for any political cause.
“BUT THEN, I think, how much more depressing to be pro-choice–without logic or science on your side, ”
But pro-choicers like myself believe we have logic and science on our side, as as much as you do. We just differ over exactly which arguments grounded in logic and science should win, as matters of morality are not firmly grounded in either and so allow for much debate.
“Unborn babies should have the right to keep and bear arms – and legs and ears and eyes etc.!”
Gotta love that one Abigail!
I do not think it has ever been done anywhere but I would bet a nickel that if the question was ever asked on a ballot “Do you support abortion” the No side would win handily. That is the reason all the pro abortion people are so paranoid about any kind of fair debate. They are afraid of where it could eventually lead.
“We just differ over exactly which arguments grounded in logic and science should win, as matters of morality are not firmly grounded in either and so allow for much debate.”
You are right that logic alone cannot determine morality. However, people of the pro-choice persuasion frequently get the science wrong, following which it is impossible for them to arrive at a logically consistent moral philosophy. If we first get the science right (eg. so that we are clear about what kind of entity we are talking about when we discuss human embryos), then we can actually have genuine philosophical differences regarding what moral respect, if any, a human embryo deserves. At that point it becomes clear that the pro-choice position involves a utilitarian view of human life. However, few people, even among those of the pro-choice persuasion, actually have the stomach to accept all of its logical conclusions. Professor Peter Singer from Princeton University is one notable exception. His moral philosophy illustrates very clearly what those logical conclusions are. He advocates infanticide, among other things.
Suricou,
I have to say that though I usually quietly lurk in the background, I quite appreciate your presence in here.
I wanted also to second what Dan said – I’m a high school teacher and have numerous opportunities to discuss abortion (among other things). I’m surprised at how often pro-choice students get their basic science not just mildly wrong, but astronomically wrong. It’s as though they start with their pro-choice position (perhaps often from their parents and/or friends, I’m guessing), and then twist everything else to accomodate that, including the facts. I’m reminded of a quote (which I don’t think I can render correctly, nor can I attribute it properly), something along the lines of, “Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts”. The failure to (publicly) admit the biological facts is one of the primary things making the pro-choice position seem rational – I’m convinced that if movement pro-choicers actually publicly recognize the science of it all, they’ll come off sounding extremely looney to the public at large.
Since most of our educators seem to be on the far left it is nice to hear from one who is an individual.
Like most of our social evils, abortion is kept in the closet because as Shane O. says, bringing the subjects to a conscious level, opens the door to questions the left don’t want answered.