A California jury convicted Scott Peterson of double-murder on Friday. Peterson killed his wife Laci and their unborn child Conner. Feminists should view justice for Scott Peterson a major victory. But some of them don't. You see, pro-abortion feminists don't think Conner Peterson was a person, and therefore, don't think that Scott Peterson is a double-murderer.

A life existed in Laci Peterson's womb. It wasn't a "clump of cells" or some other euphemism, but a baby. A California jury of twelve could see this. Why can't the New York Times, the Democratic Party, the National Organization for Women, and other promoters of late-term abortions?

The "pro-choice" position is simply incoherent. The denial that the fetus is a human being is equally incoherent.

The proabortion crowd is willfully ignorant of both abortion and the arguments against it. If they were rational, they would not favor abortion. And if photographs of aborted babies were part of the public discussion of abortion, it would not be legal.

To be "pro-choice" is to be ignorant or evil.

I think it is a powerful case of "wishful thinking." All their reasons for abortion are completely irrelevant to the first and most important question, pre-natal humanity and life. But their reasons (helping poor women, sexual liberation with no consequences) are so appealing to them, that they can't think through the real issue, which is a no brainer: human life begins at conception.

Scott deserves his double murder conviction.

why is abortion controversial but Invertro-fertility not? beside stemcell research, I've never heard IVF brought up for discussion by the media.

Cortney Cox and Julia Roberts conceived err.. I mean.. scientifically created their children through IVF and it doesnt seem like anyone cares that it 1.destroys life and 2.takes the natural act out of the conception process.

I would guess that the reason IVF isn't controversial in the media is b/c:

1) the media is generally pro-abortion and so doesn't care about the destruction of life involved in the process.

2) Wouldn't have a clue what you mean by "natural process" of conception. That was already done with contraception way back when and has only been exacerbated by the enshrining of sodomy as a constitutional right.

3) IVF allows women, like Cox and Roberts, who have drugged themselves have sterile with abortifacients like the Pill, and who have put off being a mother for reasons of career, to have babies . . . and since having a baby (at one's own convenience) is also a constitutional right, or something, then who would dare deny them?

I would like to know why adoption is so generally out of fashion for such couples.

The ethical considerations associated with IVF are not related to those of abortion. The former produces embryos, the latter murders them.

What should be discussed as a branch of the abortion debate is the mass production and "storage" of embryos destined for destruction. It is as wicked as abortion proper.

If it weren't for abortion, the liberals would just be political opponents; the fact that they vehemently defend the mass murder of innocent babies makes them the enemy.

Brad, you remind me of Carl Schmitt with your talk of the political opponent as the "enemy." For Schmitt the essence of the political is the friend-enemy distinction (as it largely was for Hobbes and Machiavelli).

Anyway, I sort-of agree with you despite myself. I don't like the idea of calling pro-choicers or abortion supporters the "enemy" because of its Manichaean overtones and the way it suggests that outright warfare is an option. I mean, we have to defend ourselves against "enemies" by whatever means necessary, right? But, that is troubling, and reminds me of the radical abolitionists like John Brown.

I do think that a fundamental truth of politics is that two cultures (and I mean "culture" in its strongest and fullest sense) can not coexist in the same place at the same time. Our general understanding of culture has become very watered down and we have grown naively and idealistically certain that everyone can just get along no matter what their beliefs. The result is that we are ignorant of the extent to which a people must share a common bond and affection born of a shared worldview and culture in order to maintain a "civil" society.

Abortion is one of those issues that makes the "Balkanization" of this nation evident. And I would note that neither slavery (the first issue that tore the country apart) or abortion would be nearly as potent a disintegrating force if we had maintained the preeminence of state's rights as established in the Articles of Confederation and still found a primary in the Constitution.

It's about time somebody said something. "Pro-choice" idiots are selfish and self-interested.
I have a two-month old, and everytime I look at him I wonder how/why anybody could underestimate the value of life. And, I had plenty of complications with my preganancy, such as a dangerously rapid heart rate at times, swelling, etc., and not once did I think about abortion. I eventually had faith, and my preganancy got better. I mention this because I notice that many women try to justify abortion because of "health reasons". My best friend recently got an abortion because of "health reasons", or because the baby just made her "too sick in the mornings", as she told me.

Brian,

Part of me, the more radical part, looks favorably on ening abortion "by any means necessary." It is difficult for me to engage in political discussion concerning abortion. Justice, not dialogue, is needed. By comparison, I see no value in politically engaging the cannibal or pedophile; they do not have the proper starting-points. And the abortionist is worse than these.

Political discourse, law, procedure, civility: can these really exist in the face of hundreds of millions of murdered babies? Stalin and Hitler pale in comparison.

The luminary behind this backing of late term abortion is that bloated cow Hillary Clinton. She is evil and wicked!

Anything that hacks at the legacy of Sarah Weddington (Roe v. Wade) is okay by me. This is a great precedent. Hopefully, prayerfully, future judges will milk it for all its worth.