The abolition of man gets into the specifics

It’s good to know the basic principles of the legal order under which one lives. One principle that’s so self-evidently persuasive that it applies even when the only relevant legal provisions anyone ever agreed to are to the contrary, is that there’s a fundamental right to wait until a child is almost born, puncture its skull, and suck its brains out. Who says this isn’t the greatest country in the world? (Incidentally, the San Francisco federal judge who issued the ruling, Phyllis Hamilton, was also the judge who ruled that a California middle school could require students to engage in Muslim prayer.)

1 thought on “The abolition of man gets into the specifics”

  1. ” ‘People who think there is
    ” ‘People who think there is a difference between infanticide and late abortion have to ask the question: What has happened to the fetus in the time it takes to pass down the birth canal and into the world which changes its moral status? I don’t think anything has happened in that time.’ True, that.”

    — from Thrasymachus Online, here:


Leave a Comment