Happy Roe v. Wade Day!: Yes, it's that time again to drag out our poor "Roe" (she who later went out and condemned abortion) and "Wade" (the poor Texan state official) and debate their merits. Well, here's someone who will do it better than I (forgive that the article is from 2002).

The author takes on the argument over abortion on three levels (the "radio call in" level, the "natural law" level, and the legal level) and tries to determine, in light of those three approaches, whether Roe is ripe for change, or whether it will pretty much stand as is because it's the best thing going, even if imperfect, assuming neither side of the argument can completely get its way. It's interesting, if not exactly ground-breaking, but at least he tries to take a balance approach to the issue by examining all the arguments.

God knows I don't want to hash out the topic, but well, I'll give you the conclusion and see if you agree with how he got there:

What, then, is the status of the abortion debate? Certainly, the practice of abortion, even at the stage prior to the sentience of the fetus, is an offense against the concept of a rights-endowing God - a concept on which the republic was founded. Perhaps it's even an offense against God Himself, an offense for which its practitioners may answer in a divinely just hereafter. But it is an offense against no person - at least insofar as the term 'person' can be consistently defined. For that reason, the Roe decision, on the basis of stare decisis, must stand.

Props to A&L Daily.