Adam – Abortion is a difficult issue. I am at once a “conservative libertarian” and an observant Jew. The observant Jew part of me makes me both Pharisaical, and under most circumstances, opposed to abortion. (The exception would be, when the mother’s life is physically threatened by the fetus.) The libertarian part of me makes me say, if the people want abortion to be legal, who am I to oppose it? The conservative (and Pharisaical) part of the libertarian in me makes me say, Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional. (I might add, that it is, indeed, unconstitutional can hardly be called “a quirk in the law.” That’s an argument modern day (il)liberals like to make when they don’t agree with something in the Constitution. My response has always been: If you don’t like it, change it, but don’t violate it.)
So, where does that leave me? As a practical matter, the conservative libertarian and Pharisaical parts have the better argument. They lead to using the Constitutional approach. Roe v. Wade makes a mockery of the Constitution and should be rolled back. That satisfies the conservative and Pharisaical part. Should it be rolled back, at least some states, reflecting the will of their citizens, will move to restrict abortion beyond current Federal restrictions. That satisfies the libertarian part. The citizens of each state make the decisions for themselves. When some states tighten up (voluntarily) restrict abortions that satisfies my observant Jewish part. As far as you are unconcerned, you will have achieved some of your goal, although not all of it, and isn’t some of a loaf better than none?
BTW I find it so interesting the modern (il)liberals always say they are for the little guy and for the helpless, but when it comes to something really little and really helpless (an embryo/fetus) they turn a blind eye. Big talkers.
