Oh, the stupidity! Toilet paper rolls called the Washington Post are full of diarrhea about abortion two days in a row.
Yesterday, Patricia Bauer repeated the hackneyed fallacy that just because somebody is a worthy and loved person now, it would have been horrible to abort the embryo that was to become that person. I understand that it is hard for her to be rational about something as intimately personal as her own child, but then she should refrain from writing about it and adding to the already extreme irrationality of the abortion "debate".
Today, Richard Cohen battles the embarrassment of his Fitzklutziness by writing an even more idiotic piece on abortion.
About
Roe, he says:
As a layman, it's hard for me to raise profound constitutional objections to the decision.
And that is the only sensible thing he wrote. Yes, Richard, you are clueless. So why do you choose to write about it? And how thick must your cheek be if you can, after that admission, write this:
The prospect of some women traveling long distances to secure an abortion does not cheer me -- I'm pro-choice, I repeat -- but it would relieve us all from having to defend a Supreme Court decision whose reasoning has not held up.
Why, oh why do we have to kill trees to print fertilizer?