I guess this is "abortion week" over here on Joe's Eclectic Thoughts. A few more thoughts on the topic. First, Andrew Sullivan (various interesting posts on subject) notes that he accepts legalized abortion (in part as a question of bodily integrity) but thinks it is clearly "wrong," in fact, this appears self-evident to him. The population generally probably agrees on some level -- some do feel early abortion (especially early first trimester -- I don't know how Sullivan feels about the morning after pill issue) are relatively trivial in the sense that the development of the embryo (in reference to recent comments, "baby" often does not pop up in their minds) is just too small to warrant too much concern.
But, overall, people are wary about abortions. They rather not have them ... both since it is not a problem-free procedure and because some sort of human life is at stake. Thus, we have the "legal, safe and rare" motto. But, many things in life are "wrong" in some respect, but we feel them necessary. For instance, many are wary about race based affirmative action -- it is in some fashion deemed a violation of usual equal protection rules. But, they still find it a necessary evil, since the alternative is worse. Ditto killing the overpopulation of pets or even hunting . One can go on -- "wrong" is a complex philosophical concept (is it a cost/benefit deal? moral imperative etc.), but the fact abortion is "wrong" does not end the question to any degree. It is but an opening question.
Second, Harriet Miers supported a strong pro-life law during her political career. This is surely not a surprise nor is it necessarily a reason not to support her confirmation. Justice Jackson criticized things he put forth as an advocate when he worked for FDR. You wear different hats as judge and legislator. I think other problems, including the clear distaste from both sides of the aisle on her submissions to the Judiciary Committee thus far, can be pointed out. An eloquent statement of what is at stake can be found here -- but, suffice to say, this is somewhat embarrassing. As with his dad (Souter/Thomas), I guess one out of two isn't bad.
Finally, Richard Cohen -- quickly becoming the Nicholas Kristoff (apologizing liberal) voice at the Washington Post -- has a poorly reasoned critique of Roe based apparently on his shallow thinking as a younger man.* Don't blame the rest of us for your simplistic moral vision, Richard, okay? If he actually read the decision, he would be less able to cheap shot it to death. Just one passing shot is telling:
For instance, if the right to an abortion is a matter of privacy then why, asked Princeton professor Robert P. George in the New York Times, is recreational drug use not? You may think you ought to have the right to get high any way you want, but it's hard to find that right in the Constitution. George asks the same question about prostitution. Legalize it, if you want -- two consenting adults, after all -- but keep Jefferson, Madison and the rest of the boys out of it.**
Okay, this is dumb. First, recreational drug use is partly a privacy matter, which is one reason why Prohibition did not go over that well. Two, we aren't talking absolutes here. The prostitution bit is really dumb -- why not criminalize sodomy, Richard? I assume you don't like gay rights. Third, you do know that control of fertility is for various reasons more fundamental than the right to get high or pay for sex (other than the dinner/movie deal), right? Do you get paid for this shit?
A more sensical editorial at WP can be found here. Sigh.
---
* Is it poorly argued anti-abortion week at the paper? Anyway, I know I am just inviting pro-life arguments by keeping up these abortion posts, but not to worry, I will go back to just railing against Bush etc. and all will be back to normal soon.
Anyway, the heading of the piece is "Support Choice, Not Roe," but the piece cheapens "choice" as much as it cheapens Roe. My local paper put a different heading, saying Roe is more than a privacy issue. This is a more appropriate one, I think given the stance of the piece, but again ... (1) sure and (2) what do you mean by "privacy?" The Supremes have noted it means both the right of seclusion as well as the right to make certain intimate decisions. Both necessarily involve many issues. And, nothing is purely private. But, simplify away.
** The NY Daily News reprint only has the first sentence. Interesting example of editing, huh?