Tim Russert had a clip of Bill Clinton as President saying he would only appoint judges who were pro-choice. That raises the question of why President Bush have the right to appoint judges that were pro-life. Bush won the election in part on the platform of voting conservative judges, and I think it's improper for Democrats to try to shoot the Roberts nomination on anything other than ethical or tempermental issues.
That's not to say that Roberts is anti-choice (his wife runs a feminist organization), or that I am resolved on the issue of abortion. In my early years, I was overwhelmingly pro-choice, and still fundamentally find the argument of women having freedom over their bodies appealing. But after seeing a 3-month ultrasound of a friend, I find it disingenous to deny that abortion is not an allowed killing! Where does a balance lie ... when does life begin ... these are questions I have not been able to answer. I would love to hear intelligent opinion on this issue (please use the comment section to do so).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment