Abortion....ick My least favorite of all debates, but I will add some thoughts. Enobarbus, I have trouble with a point you make. If it's so clear that life begins at conception and that the debate is over "when" is just "hairsplitting for moral justification," how can abortion be so clearly a matter of morality but not legality. It becomes a public concern when your choices and actions begin to infringe on my (or your fetus') life and liberty. Once you introduce another life into that mix, it's not a matter of privacy since the mother's choice very clearly impacts another's life. That's why the pro-choice movement needs so desparately to define life differently. If it's not a life, it's no problem. No different from masturbation, really. You know, every sperm isn't sacred, nor is every fetus. If you belive differently, (as I do) then you need to show some reason for the choice to abort. Now, due to differing moral compasses, what's adequate reason for you may not be for me. And that's what Radley's exercise is all about.

That's why this is a matter for the states, even though I find it difficult to get over the fact that a life is more precious in one state than another. But isn't that what we do with the death penalty? Allow one constituency to say that every life must be protected while another says, no, there are circumstances when the state will allow a life to be terminated (I'm not trying to have the "death penalty debate" right now, by the way, just point out that it works pretty well as a state issue but would upset a lot if it were left to the feds). Razor probably knows the legal issues better than me, but isn't this the reason smart people argue that Roe is just bad law, period (aside from the reasons used by the less reasoned members of the movement)?