George Bush is an abortion.

Obviously I don't mean that as literal truth -- and believe it or not, I don't even mean it to be insulting to the Chimp (although I probably could if I wanted to). No, folks, I'm drawing a metaphor here.

The vast majority of us on DU are pro-choice, and we can easily name many reasons why abortion is moral and should remain legal. But I think we can all agree that, all else being equal, an abortion not taking place is preferable to an abortion taking place. Perhaps we can all agree that it should be established as an ethical rule, that an abortion should take place only for compelling reasons, and not as a matter of convenience. But how do we bring this about?

We certainly don't do it by outlawing abortions. We've already tried that, and we've seen the result: the abortions happened anyway, just by hacks with coat hangars instead of doctors with specialized instruments. No, pro-choicers and the more reasonable pro-lifers agree that abortions will only slow to a trickle (they will likely never stop) when women receive and understand instructions regarding safe and responsible sexual practices, alternatives to abortion, and the ethics of the situation. Perhaps the day will come when we CAN outlaw abortions except when medically or ethically (because of rape or incest) necessary, and nobody will really mind -- but that day is very, very far away.

The same goes with George Bush. He is a problem many times the magnitude of an abortion, and something must be done with him. But the solution is not impeachment proceedings, at least not right away. Bush and his criminal cronies are protected by fortuitous (for him) circumstances. Before bringing them to justice, the following things must be done, in no particular order:

* Compile an ironclad criminal case against him.

* Present this case to the public, and push for it.

* Convince the public that it is more preferable than not to prosecute him.

* Convince enough Republicans in positions of power that it is undesirable to continue protecting him.

* Accomplish as much bipartisan work for the good of the people as possible under the new Democratic Congress, so that it will become clear that this is a matter of law and justice, and not revenge or enmity.

I don't know if we can do all these things in two years. Perhaps we can't in which case Bush's prosecution will have to come after he is out of office -- and hopefully when we have an even larger Democratic majority in Congress, and a Democratic President. Delayed justice is better than no justice at all, and I fear that if we push too hard too soon, no justice is precisely what we'll have.


Just my $0.02.

What exactly do you mean by "Perhaps the day will come when we CAN outlaw abortions except when medically or ethically (because of rape or incest) necessary, and nobody will really mind -- but that day is very, very far away"?

I mean, while I'd prefer that abortions only occur in the cases you mention, I prefer even more so that the potential mother-to-be have the choice to decide what to do with her own body, no matter what the reason.

Perhaps the day will come when we CAN outlaw abortions except when medically or ethically (because of rape or incest) necessary, and nobody will really notice except legal scholars and historians, because it's not like anyone's gonna break that law. I'm talking about hundreds of years from now, when we're all long-limbed plankton farmers on Ganymede. ;)

I'm not interested in an abortion debate here, or what constitutes a compelling reason to have one. I only brought it up to draw an analogy to the Chimp.

"Perhaps we can all agree that it should be established as an ethical rule, that an abortion should take place only for compelling reasons, and not as a matter of convenience. But how do we bring this about?"

To this line: "when women receive and understand instructions regarding safe and responsible sexual practices"

Women are fully capable of understanding instructions regarding safe and responsible sexual practice. What women need is access to birth control, safe relationships and the right to control their own reproductive freedom.

Sorry but it was your choice to use abortion as the comparison so expect to be called on the RW talking points you use in your post.

when we can outlaw anyone except the woman from ever trying to control her body.

'Perhaps the day will come when we CAN outlaw abortions except when medically or ethically (because of rape or incest) necessary, and nobody will really mind -- but that day is very, very far away.'

That perhaps the day will come when the only abortions that are necessary are those that occur becuase of rape, incest, or maternal health. Why? Because couples will have access to birth control that will prevent unwanted pregnancy.