There are some of us who are the ultimate liberals and believe protection provided endangered species should be allowed the unborn.

Tell that to God. He allows eggs to be fertilized but not implanted in the uterus, and miscarriages in the billions over the course of human history.

God doesn’t seem to ascribe all that much importance to “the unborn.” Why should the state?

IF he is elected, I’ll say it again, we will not see any significantly different policy in Iraq, and could indeed to headed to more military involvement in Afghanistan (which would be a major mistake IMO), as well as possibly against Pakistan (which Obama has threatened). And I also see the strong possibility of a “humanitarian” conflict involving the US in Darfur and other areas on the continent of Africa.

oldfaithful, perhaps you could be specific about the governmental restrictions you reference? What you call the “ultimate protection” is problematic, because it “protects” potential/future life at the expense of actual/present life – that is, the life of the mother. It is not true that enforced-birth policies are neutral or positive in their effect on women.

Some anti-abortion activists (I’m don’t know whether this is true of you) posit that the “innocence” of the zygote/embryo/fetus overrides every other consideration, a formulation that is also problematic, for both scientific and theological reasons. This argument frequently contains an underlying attitude like the ones that OWIL illustrates above, namely, that women who have unplanned pregnancies are “bad” and “deserve” to have the continued pregnancy forced on them as some sort of justice, punishment, lesson, etc.

Once again, this is a simplistic view that does not acknowledge the complex realities of women facing unplanned pregnancies, many of whom are, for example, married. (And if they aren’t married, are they therefore sluts? And what about the men? For some reason, there never seem to be arguments from legislators that they should also be taught a lesson or held responsible. How about a law mandating DNA tests to establish unknown paternity? Followed by mandatory marriage to give the “unborn child” two parents? Where does our interference end?) A position that says “birth good, abortion bad” regardless of the circumstances, no matter how sincerely held, is simply inadequate.

There will always be abortions. Always have been, always will be, and no amount of wishing or law-passing will make it otherwise. Demonizing women who have abortions only makes things worse (again, I’m not ascribing this to you). The most we can do is reduce their frequency, by doing everything possible to reduce and eliminate the circumstances that lead to unplanned pregnancies: lack of birth control and sex education, lack of health care, lack of adequate financial and emotional support.

If you compared Mississippi’s and Massachusetts’ divorce rates, I bet you’d be in for another surprise . . .