Some Clarification: First, I don't think I ever brought up litmus tests or regulation. Whether it should be illegal to abort a child for a probable sexual orientation is not the subject I raised. I merely said that Radley points to an interesting conflict of principles, when abortion becomes an explicit tool of trait selection. (And, implicitly, the flip side of trait selection is deselection.) As a pro-choice individual who still has moral qualms about abortion, trait selection seems a little cavalier as a justification, especially when compared with, as you mention, rape. It's a thought experiment, not a policy position. Apologies if that was unclear.

Second, this is what Radley said:

Those in the "pro-choice" crowd who are most vigilant about protecting abortion rights aren't pro-choice at all. They're pro-abortion. They'll swear they aren't, because it's of course a political loser to admit as much. But don't let them fool you. They want to see lots of abortions, and they're genuinely pissed off each time a woman actually chooses to have a baby -- as if each woman's individual choice to carry a pregnancy to term is an affront to the progress of women everywhere. If she's single, and young, and the pregnancy presents any sort of challenge for her, all the worse.

No, he didn't make this a blanket statement about everyone who is pro-choice. He singles out the most vigilant, the most active of the activists. (My choice of words, "the abortion lobby," was not clear cut enough, either. I'm talking about extremists, and the pro-choice side has some moral basket cases, just as surely as the pro-life side has evil, gun-toting loonies willing to take a life to save an unborn one.) He pulls a rhetorical trick with the "don't believe their denials" routine that I think is reprehensible, and I think he should provide at least some anecdotal evidence to back up his claims. Nonetheless, I have heard pro-choice speakers use what sounds, to this cynic, like coded language, decribing the abortion choice in personal-is-political terms. (Radley, of course, goes a step further, suggesting hostility toward birth in general, which I think is bunkum.) Beyond that, the more hard-line abortion rights activists denounce government funding of adoption counseling (I agree, but I'm against government funding in general) while they argue that government funding should assist women who have financial difficulty exercising their "right" to abortion. This is an unjustifiable line of crap. Hostility toward adoption on those terms, and with those contradictions, makes little sense unless one views abortion as a political, as well as personal, choice.

I'm going to stop here. Like you said, this can wait. But I wanted to point out that the points I'm making are a little more subtle than you're giving me credit for, and perhaps more subtle than my choice of words made clear. As for our dear Agitator, his statements, while not entirely false, are slippery and evasive. He has a point, but he's better served making it in more measured ways.