Can of worms...opened: Radley is going off lately - must be something in his coffee. He takes the Bush Admin. to task over its reliance on the erroneous misinformation concerning the African uranium deal. He also really opens the spigot on abortion. He starts off with the observation that pro-choice people really aren't for choice, they're really pro-abortion (remembering that pro-choice is the middle ground in the debate). I disagree, and find such an argument sophomoric. Having escorted people at a "family planning" clinic (Radley would say "abortion factory"), I can safely say that the "pro choice" crowd can't be so easily labeled, and I've met enough of them to assure me that they really do want people to have the choice, and that whether you keep your baby is secondary to whether you have the option to keep your baby. Although I haven't been exactly in that situation, I've been in that netherworld where you are waiting for your girlfriend/spouse to tell you her monthly package has arrived, albeit a few weeks late. At those times, the two of us had discussed what we would do. Both being pro-choice, we had serious reservations about an abortion. Again, it never got to the ultimate decision-making point, but the exercise alone was enough to show me how tough that "choice" really is.

Radley then goes into the law school-type convention of throwing out examples: What if there were a test that could show if your fetus would turn out to be gay? Would it then be okay to have an abortion? What if you didn't like the hair color? His argument, however, misses the point. Right now, you don't need any reason to have an abortion. Why throw up these distracting arguments when they are irrelevant?

I have a host of other issues that I could go off on, but I'd rather not have this devolve too terribly as this issue cannot be resolved through intelligent discourse - and FauxPolitik only engages in intelligent discourse.