The Barbershop has re-located

The proprietor has moved the shop to ChicagoNow, a Chicago Tribune site that showcases some of the best bloggers in the Chicago area. You can logo on to the Barbershop home page here. The ChicagoNow home page is here.

You'll still be able to post comments with the same ease as in this location. The proprietor also will keep this web site alive if you wish to review old posts.

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Saying "No" to Abortion

By Dennis Byrne
Political Mavens

There's good news to celebrate on the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton U.S. Supreme Court decisions legalizing abortions for any reason: The U.S. abortion rate has dropped to its lowest level since 1974, the year after abortion's legalization.

But judging from the news accounts, you might get the idea that this is bad not good news. We're told about the difficulty that abortion clinics have in staying open, "restrictive" abortion laws being passed in many states (such as, oh dear, stopping a child's friend from taking her across state lines for a secret abortions without the knowledge of their parents), intimidation by "anti-choice zealots" and so forth. In other words, reason for the decline is that women are being denied their "reproductive rights."

No mention was made of another, perhaps more obvious contributing factor. Maybe increasing numbers of women are deciding that having an abortion is not a good idea.

This, after all, is the most effective way of reducing abortions, better than all the laws that might be passed. And it is an effect rejoinder to an appalling statement made by "anti-lifer," Beth Jordan, of the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. Delighted about the increasing use of the abortion pill, RU-486, she said, "It's going a long way toward normalizing abortion."

Thanks for the honesty, Ms. Jordan. The real goal is to "normalize" the termination of human life.

1 comment:

lake county democrat said...

Dennis, you once wrote the most persuasive pro-life column I've read (as a pro-choicer): it was about the point in time a fetus feels pain. From what I understand this is a subject of debate for scientists. Because that's a different question: it's hard to argue the state can regulate causing pain to, say, a dog, but can't regulate human pain because it's inside another person (I've never accepted the "Constititutional right to control your body" argument. The Constitution allows the army to draft anyone's butt, send them to Iraq, and order them to march down the street waiving a flag with the Danish Mohammed cartoon on it, or worse! What kind of control over the body is that?)

So why am I pro-choice? Freedom of religion. It strikes me that the question of when a fetus gets a soul is a religious one and *that* should be left to the mother.