Like anybody, I had four greatgrandmothers. Two of them died in illegal abortions. Their children spoke of the events, indeed, at the very time of the great Roe v. Wade debate, and certainly wished their mothers had lived. But they themselves remained anti-abortion. For both Bobert and Misophist, I am familiar with the reasons you cite, and I do acknowledge, they're compelling -- as well as provocative, but I'll refrain from responding. I know you'd be just as familiar with the counters I'd offer, and I'd anticipate your further rebuttals with further arguments you've heard before. I don't want to bore you, nor do I see any much hope for changing of minds on either side.

There's something about this issue that's intractable, like no other I can think of. Maybe it's because this is the one place where the crucial legal idea of individual responsibility is fogged up by the fact that at some point (when that point comes, we can't agree) a second person enters. Maybe because it's tangled with so many other issues. Maybe, and I really do think the current situation resembles the debate over slavery, because we can see that no real compromise is possible. Half of us will be restricted by moral/philosophical determinations not our own, or half of us will have to abide -- and to some extent be complicit in -- what we regard as an atrocity.


But I'll stick to my feeling that there's something deeply inconsistent with the party that claims to be the voice of the voiceless erring on the side of those with voices. And committing itself so wholeheartedly to the extinction of debate, of any searching discussion, even of its own consistency. On this issue, and as far as I can see, on this issue alone, there's an uncharacteristic intolerance of lawful, peaceful protest, of open debate. Something quite horrible has become perfectly normal, and it's disloyal or in bad taste to raise questions about it.