As you know, I reject the premise of your first claim. Since I regard abortion as a morally legitimate exercise of a woman’s rights of self-ownership, I regard all abortion laws as State aggression. Cf. Why We Marched for a short version of the reasons why. Further, if you honestly believe that you are living through the worst holocaust in all of human history, I’ve got to wonder just what you are doing about it.
As for the putative psychological and health effects on women, the Lysenkoist research
that has gone into these activist claims is completely bogus. But even if it were not, you know damn well that it’s completely irrelevant to the issue. If abortion is murder, then it does not matter whether or not the murderer is hurt by it; it should be illegal because of the harm to the victim. And if abortion is not murder (as I hold), then the State has absolutely no business interfering with a woman’s decision to seek abortion–no more than it has interfering with any other potentially risky medical decision. Sometimes the risks of a risky procedure are worth it and sometimes they aren’t; but that’s bloody well up to the patient to decide.
The notion that irresponsible cads couldn’t figure out ways to avoid responsibility for children they father prior to abortion decriminalization is of course false.
And I don’t give a damn about the court dispensing politics.
Judicial activities are justified or unjustified by their substantive results, not by the statist mythology of judicial restraint. If rulings move society closer towards freedom, then they are good rulings; if they move society further away from freedom, they are bad rulings. Of course, you can say, But abortion is murder, so decriminalizing it moves society further away from freedom.
But that’s hardly a non-question-begging reason to offer to someone whom you already know to support abortion rights. As for the legal reasoning
in Roe is not any worse than in any other major Supreme Court decision. You seem to think that I care how well a Court ruling lines up with the notes that some arbitrarily selected band of usurpers passed amongst themselves at some arbitrarily selected point in the past. I don’t. My standards for good legal reasoning are entirely different.
40 million children have been brutally murdered and vacuumed out of the uteruses of women.
Women have won themselves a lifetime of emotional scarring and an increased risk of various diseases.
Men have won themselves dramatically decreased responsibility to their sirees. (Partially through abortion, partially through other means.)
The country won itself a court that dispenses politics, not law. Roe’s legal reasoning is absolutely laughable, and its follow-up in Casey is worse.
So many lost, so tell me who has won?