UPDATE: At least there are brave filmmakers, including Ben "Bad to the Bone" Stein, to demand tenure and funding for professors who consider themselves competent to declare that evolution didn't occur. The movie's blog refers to PZ Myers as "atheist blogger and fabulist," neglecting to mention that he is an actual biologist. Pity that the filmmakers took a hostile attitude toward Christian intellectual Dr. Francis Collins.

That’s "just ludicrous," Dr. Collins said in a telephone interview. While many of his scientific colleagues are not religious and some are "a bit puzzled" by his faith, he said, "they are generally very respectful." He said that if the problem Mr. Ruloff describes existed, he is certain he would know about it.
Dr. Collins was not asked to participate in the film. Dr. Collins gave the commencement speech at UVa's 2001 graduation, and Mr. Ruloff probably would be confounded by how someone could gently exhort in favor of religion without getting run off a public university's campus.

Decision number two: Well, this is the one that makes people squirm. What are you going to do about faith? Uh oh, not that one. But can there be any more important questions than these: How did we all get here? What is the meaning of life? How is it that we know deep-down inside what is right and wrong and yet rarely succeed in doing what is right for more than about thirty minutes? What happens to us after we die?

Surely these are among the most critical questions in life. And ones which a university should carefully consider. But how much time have you spent on them? Perhaps you, like I, grew up in a home where faith played a significant role, but you never made it your own. Or you concluded it was a fuzzy area that made you uncomfortable. Or even concluded that it was all superstition, like Mark Twain's schoolboy, who when requested to define faith said, 'It is believing what you know ain't so.' Or perhaps you simply assumed that as you grew in knowledge of science that faith was incompatible with a rigorous intellect and that God was irrelevant and obsolete. Well, I am here to tell you that this is not so.

All of those half-truths against the possibility of God have holes in them big enough to drive a truck through, as I learned by reading C.S. Lewis. In my view, there is no conflict between being a 'rigorous, show me the data' physician-scientist and a person who believes in a God who takes a personal interest in each one of us and whose domain is in the spiritual world. A domain not possible to explore by the tools and language and science, but with the heart, the mind and the soul.

Yet, it is remarkable how many of us fail to consider those questions of eternal significance until some personal crisis or advancing age forces us to face our own spiritual impoverishment. Don't make that mistake.

Perhaps the one good thing about Republicans' insistence that we should all be color-blind is that their candidates have thus far been quite good about not seeing race in this campaign. Both their praise and criticism of Obama have been for non-racial qualities: his charisma in the plus column, his inexperience and liberalism as minuses. If the Republican nominee can make cutting, sarcastic remarks about Obama without getting into race, I begin to wonder why Obama's opponents within the Democratic Party can't do the same. Obama's campaign is well aware that he needs to win a large percentage of white votes, so they don't bring up race much themselves, because it's not a winning issue for him with undecided white voters. However, if someone else makes any reference to race in a criticism of Obama, then the campaign's asking why race is being raised is logical, because the criticizer did it first.

Thus far, the only significant commentator who I have heard make a wrongful claim of racism has been Orlando Patterson, of whom Ferraro also complained. In a NYTimes op-ed, he questioned why there weren't any black kids in Clinton's 3 AM ad and said, "In my reading, the ad, in the insidious language of symbolism, says that Mr. Obama is himself the danger, the outsider within." While Patterson may be right that the Clinton campaign along with conservatives is trying to portray Obama as an outsider to America, especially white America -- supported only by blacks, unpatriotic, possibly Muslim, etc. -- this specific ad was at most an unconscious attempt to do so. As we've seen over and over with Republicans' amusement that Democrats would run two, TWO minority candidates, many whites' default idea of America is that it's white, and of power is that it's male. Presidential candidates' race and sex only become an "issue" if they're not white males. Even assuming Patterson is correct that none of the children are black (they're so dimly lighted, I couldn't tell), it probably just didn't occur to anyone in the Clinton campaign that it would be nice to show a black kid to communicate that the danger against which Clinton will protect us is a danger to all Americans, regardless of race. It was not an intentional effort to exclude African Americans.

I'm unclear on how any president thinks he will stem the problem of foreign fighters and arms coming over the Iraqi border, unless he plans either to increase troop levels even further to the point that they can secure the 900 mile border with Iran and the 300 mile border with Syria, or makes an agreement with Iraq and Syria that includes penalties for their non-compliance. Even an erstwhile ally like Turkey has taken to bombing northern Iraq in order to deter rebels' hopes for a Kurdish state. Moreover, Iraq's own leadership appears quite willing to sit down with Ahmadinejad.

Gerson says with regard to Iraq (oddly*, the last topic discussed in his op-ed), "American troops will no longer be embedded in Iraqi combat units or used to combat Iranian influence (all pledges made during his campaign). ... Armed groups of Sunnis and Shiites within Iraq begin preparing for a resumption of sectarian conflict." Yet this was hardly a "no new taxes" type of promise on Obama's part -- he has said he would adjust it if necessary after discussions with senior military leaders:

"As commander in chief, I’m not going to leave trainers unprotected," he said. "In our counterterrorism efforts, I'm not going to have a situation where our efforts can't be successful. If the commanders tell me that they need X, Y and Z, in order to accomplish the very narrow mission that I've laid out, then I will take that into consideration."

Gerson's implication that Obama would leave Iraqis to sectarian genocide is particularly bizarre given that he cites Samantha Power's influence on Obama. Indeed, an actual unconditional pledge Obama has made is, "Yet as we drawdown, we must declare our readiness to intervene with allies to stop genocidal violence."

* I say oddly because Gerson himself is a former Bush speechwriter who was part of the White House Iraq Group that marketed the war to Americans. One might think that he would attack Obama on the Iraq issue first even if Gerson does fantasize that Iran is actually a higher priority than Iraq for Obama.

... However, there is a darker side to the Internet. Along with the access and anonymity of the Internet have come those who would use it to peddle child pornography and other sexually explicit material and to prey upon children.
John McCain has been a leader in pushing legislation through Congress that requires all schools and libraries receiving federal subsidies for Internet connectivity to utilize technology to restrict access to sexually explicit material by children using such computers. While the first line of defense for children will always be strong and involved parents, when they send their child to school or drop their child off at the library, parents have the right to feel safe that someone is going to be looking out for their children.

The harm that legislators prevent through severe penalties for possession of child pornography is not that other children will see such images, but that children will be used to make the pornography. The Supreme Court struck down the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 for outlawing sexual images that appeared to be of children but were made using adults or through digital manipulation. Even the dissenters in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition premised their argument on the difficulty for prosecutors of distinguishing between real instead of fake child pornography, not on the inherent evil of the latter.

Moreover, CIPA was controversial less for its restrictions on schools than on libraries. The Court managed to uphold the law by getting Kennedy's vote, and his concurrence relied on the government's claim that libraries would remove the filter upon request of any adult user. The idea that "parents have the right to feel safe that someone is going to be looking out for their children" when they "drop their child off at the library" makes little sense. Schools may stand in loco parentis (though only Thomas believes they are not simultaneously state actors), but libraries and other public facilities have no such status. Library staff lack any special relationship to children who enter the premises. Unlike teachers, they have no statutory obligation to report suspected abuse, and expressly disclaim responsibility for any harms children encounter while at the library. Some parents might like to think they can shuffle off responsibility for their children by dropping them at a library -- that, in McCain's words, they have a "right" to do so -- but they cannot.

Child pornography and predation are matters of governmental concern and proper for regulation because they entail obvious harms. "Peddl[ing] ... other sexually explicit material," in contrast, is protected activity no matter how much Republicans may dislike it. McCain cleverly cloaks the conservative antagonism to freedom of sexualized speech in the irreproachable justification of doing it For the Children. He probably realizes that given Americans' level of consumption of online sexual material, he would lose lots of independents' votes by actually stating that pornography in general is inimical to human dignity.

BY THE WAY: For the in-country, non-environmentalist, non-veteran, irreligious straight white male who feels left out by the People categories on Obama's website, the Republican candidate's site offers another option: Lawyers for McCain. McCain is the remaining candidate who isn't a lawyer, and was unusual even within the plausible Republican field (Romney, Giuliani, Thompson) for lacking a law degree.

For example, with regard to third party standing Chemerinsky said that such standing is allowed if there is a close relationship between the plaintiff and the injured third party. His example was the doctor-patient relationship that permitted abortionists to assert their patients' rights to challenge restrictions on abortion. Hence the line of abortion cases that followed Roe mostly have plaintiffs like Planned Parenthood, Dr. Franklin, Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Dr. Simopoulos, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Dr. Carhart.

But these abortion providers were themselves at risk of criminal prosecution for violating the abortion restrictions, which violations could entail losing one's medical license and serving prison time, as Dr. Simopoulos did. So it was actually the physician plaintiff's liberty or property that was at risk from enforcement, while it was the third party's -- the aborting woman's -- right that was at issue. Similarly, it was the beer vendor in Craig v. Boren whom the Court found to suffer "injury in fact," because she would be punished by the state if she sold to men under 21.

Thus a "close relationship" between the parties is not sufficient. There must be a close relationship between the right sought to be vindicated, and the inability to exercise the right if someone (physician, beer-seller, et al.) will be legally sanctioned for violating the statute. If we flipped the proposals of people like Fred Thompson and punished the abortion-seeker rather than the abortionist, the latter would cease to have standing to bring suit, because he no longer would face any penalties under the law.

The author of this book condemns von Braun for his collaboration with the SS, and condemns the United States government for covering up the evidence of his collaboration. Here I beg to differ with the author. War is an inherently immoral activity. Even the best of wars involves crimes and atrocities, and every citizen who takes part in war is to some extent collaborating with criminals. I should here declare my own interest in this debate. In my work for the RAF Bomber Command, I was collaborating with people who planned the destruction of Dresden in February 1945, a notorious calamity in which many thousands of innocent civilians were burned to death. If we had lost the war, those responsible might have been condemned as war criminals, and I might have been found guilty of collaborating with them.

After this declaration of personal involvement, let me state my conclusion. In my opinion, the moral imperative at the end of every war is reconciliation. Without reconciliation there can be no real peace. Reconciliation means amnesty. It is allowable to execute the worst war criminals, with or without a legal trial, provided that this is done quickly, while the passions of war are still raging. After the executions are done, there should be no more hunting for criminals and collaborators. In order to make a lasting peace, we must learn to live with our enemies and forgive their crimes. Amnesty means that we are all equal before the law. Amnesty is not easy and not fair, but it is a moral necessity, because the alternative is an unending cycle of hatred and revenge. South Africa has set us a good example, showing how it can be done.

In the end, I admire von Braun for using his God-given talents to achieve his visions, even when this required him to make a pact with the devil. He bent Hitler and Himmler to his purposes more than they bent him to theirs. And I admire the United States Army for giving him a second chance to pursue his dreams. In the end, the amnesty given to him by the United States did far more than a strict accounting of his misdeeds could have done to redeem his soul and to fulfill his destiny.

But if the time has not come, and may never come, for public identification, what then of private identification?
Everyone detected with AIDS should be tatooed in the upper forearm, to protect common-needle users, and on the buttocks, to prevent the victimization of other homosexuals.
You have got to be kidding! That's exactly what we suspected all along! You are calling for the return of the Scarlet Letter, but only for homosexuals!
Answer: The Scarlet Letter was designed to stimulate public obloquy. The AIDS tattoo is designed for private protection. And the whole point of this is that we are not talking about a kidding matter. Our society is generally threatened, and in order to fight AIDS, we need the civil equivalent of universal military training.

In his 2005 column, Buckley smugly noted that gay men themselves were calling for more intervention to prevent transmission, yet neglected to mention that the very article he was citing said that this new willingness was born of gay men's trust in the law, which instead of putting them in camps has protected them from discrimination. 1986 Gay Man had Bowers and Buckley's tattoos; 2005 Gay Man had Lawrence and AIDS listed in the ADA. One also might think from Buckley's writings that few measures were taken to stem transmission, yet in 1985, NYC and other cities were closing down establishments identified as permitting sodomy on the premises.

2. One might think, on hearing that the National Review in the 1950s defended Southern states' rights, that this was a high-minded Constitutional position: Buckley simply did not agree with Brown v. Board's claim that the 14th Amendment forbade segregation. Alas, it does not appear to have been that kind of intellectually respectable federalism, but something that reminds one more of the WWII Japanese attitude toward other Asian races -- here are some inferior beings that ought not be in charge of anything until we have raised them to a level more approximating our own.

The central question that emerges--and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal--is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes--the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the median cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists. The question, as far as the White community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage. The British believe they do, and acted accordingly, in Kenya, where the choice was dramatically one between civilization and barbarism, and elsewhere; the South, where the conflict is by no means dramatic, as in Kenya, nevertheless perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes', and intends to assert its own.

National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority. Sometimes it becomes impossible to assert the will of a minority, in which case it must give way, and the society will regress; sometimes the numerical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence.

UPDATE: Why I also will be ceasing to comment on other people's blogs, edit Wikipedia, or otherwise engage in online writing except as encouraged by a salaried position.

If I used to comment regularly at your blog and you actually miss having me rip on your other commenters, please e-mail.

The Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics sets a gold standard for religious voter guides. It lays out clearly what the obligations of a Catholic voter are, the Church's stance on various issues and why a candidate may permissibly support invading Iraq but not legalize abortion. (In brief, the ultimate goals of "peace" or "solidarity with the poor" may plausibly be believed achievable through different means, including preemptive war or having aid to the poor go through the private sector rather than government; the ultimate goals of respecting human life or maintaining the moral institution of marriage is not plausibly achievable through abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning or same-sex marriage.)

The Catholic Guide also is not specific to a single election. It mentions neither candidates nor parties, only the "non-negotiable" values and general principles of the Catholic faith. If anyone tried to prevent churches from handing out this guide, I'd be happy to work pro bono for the churches to ensure that they retained their 501(c)(3) status. This is exactly what the role of a church in politics ought to be: clarifying for its members what their shared moral commitments are, and urging them to be active in putting those commitments into the polity. I disagree with the Catholic church on every single "non-negotiable" issue except human cloning (I favor the legality of abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and same-sex marriage), but they are behaving just as they should in the political sphere. The prefatory statement on the guide, "Nothing in this voter's guide should be construed as an endorsement of any particular candidate or political party," is extraneous.

The IRS says, "voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that: (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention." The MFI guide dodges a violation of this rule by varying its presentation of issues. Some are ones that the MFI probably thinks candidates should oppose; some are ones that the MFI probably thinks candidates should support. The overall effect is to lay out the information and let voters align themselves.

I first thought about religious voter guides thanks to the American Family Association's emailing me me today:

AFA will not bow down to a threat from a liberal left-wing group

The Rev. Barry Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, has asked that the Internal Revenue Service investigate the American Family Association. Lynn says that AFA has violated IRS rules by distributing a voters guide.

For years, Rev. Lynn and his Americans United, along with groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and People for the American Way, have used threats to silence Christians in an attempt to take away their First Amendment rights. The tragedy is that he has been successful in silencing thousands of ministers.

Let me make one thing clear to Rev. Lynn and his cohorts. We have no intention of bowing down to his threatening demands. Rev. Lynn is mistaken if he thinks his threat will scare this minister from exercising his First Amendment rights.

Lynn has also included a threat to churches. Trying to scare ministers from exercising their rights, Lynn said: "Any church that distributes these biased guides is risking its tax exemption and casting aside its integrity."

The AFA Voters Guide was developed by three constitutional lawyers and reviewed by three more constitutional lawyers following Rev. Lynn's threat. All agreed that the voters guide is perfectly legal.

The Alliance Defense Fund has offered to represent (free of charge) churches or organizations which distribute the voter's guide and encounter opposition from either Lynn or the IRS.

Thank you for caring enough to get involved. If you feel our efforts are worthy of support, would you consider making a small tax-deductible contribution? Click here to make a donation.

Sincerely,
Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman American Family Association

Human Life Amendment - Supports a national Human Life Amendment
Traditional Marriage - Supports a Federal Marriage Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman only
Gun Rights - Opposes an assault weapons ban
Business Freedom - Opposes laws forcing business to favor homosexuality
Limit Taxes - Signed AFTR Pledge to not raise taxes
Opposes Gay Pride - Refused to support Gay Pride celebrations
Iraq War - Opposes immediate removal of troops from Iraq
Moral Education - Opposes curriculum that promotes homosexuality

The guide may survive its attack -- and in the world of the American Family Association, every move from a liberal group is another reason to send out an email bemoaning its troubles and asking for more money, so perhaps they deliberately tread close to the line of what was permissible. With the war on Christmas in abeyance for the next several months, the AFA's gotta justify its existence and raise donations somehow. Still, in the unlikely event that the AFA spent tax-exempt contributions on lawyers who were supposed to approve this guide to be well within IRS guidelines, Wildmon should ask for the money back.

The IRS explanation of the law is as follows:

Voter Guides
Like other IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, some churches and religious organizations undertake voter education activities by distributing voter guides. Voter guides, generally, are distributed during an election campaign and provide information on how all candidates stand on various issues. These guides may be distributed with the purpose of educating voters; however, they may not be used to attempt to favor or oppose candidates for public elected office.
A careful review of the following facts and circumstances may help determine whether or not a church or religious
organization’s publication or distribution of voter guides constitutes prohibited political campaign activity:
■ whether the candidates’ positions are compared to the organization’s position,
■ whether the guide includes a broad range of issues that the candidates would address if elected to the
office sought,
■ whether the description of issues is neutral,
■ whether all candidates for an office are included, and
■ whether the descriptions of candidates’ positions are either:
- the candidates’ own words in response to questions, or
- a neutral, unbiased and complete compilation of all candidates’ positions.

The following are examples of situations where churches distribute voter guides.

Example 1: Church R distributes a voter guide prior to elections. The voter guide consists of a brief statement from the candidates on each issue made in response to a questionnaire sent to all candidates for governor of State I. The issues on the questionnaire cover a wide variety of topics and were selected by Church R based solely on their importance and interest to the electorate as a whole. Neither the questionnaire nor the voter guide, through their content or structure, indicate a bias or preference for any candidate or group of candidates. Church R is not participating or intervening in a political campaign.

Example 2: Church S distributes a voter guide during an election campaign. The voter guide is prepared using the responses of candidates to a questionnaire sent to candidates for major public offices. Although the questionnaire covers a wide range of topics, the wording of the questions evidences a bias on certain issues. By using a questionnaire structured in this way, Church S is participating or intervening in a political campaign.

Due to the unpopularity of judicial power on the right, this is viewed as not only a bad thing to have said about the particular law, but an inherently dangerous view for any member of the other two branches of government to hold. While the courts have judicial review over the constitutionality of legislation and the executive's interpretation of its statutory and constitutional powers, Congress and the President nonetheless swear to uphold the Constitution* and are obliged to act within the bounds of what they understand the Constitution to mean. Simply abdicating all constitutional understanding to the courts is a failure of duty and is particularly alarming to conservatives who fear kritarchy.

McCain's attitude of legislate it all and let SCOTUS sort 'em out stands in particular contrast to the current Republican president. Although Bush signed McCain-Feingold stating his own doubts of its constitutionality, he did not issue a signing statement of the sort he has with legislation that he deems to encroach upon his unitary executive powers. Evidently Congress's abrogating the freedom of speech is something that the courts can be left to figure out, but Congress's mandating that no funds be spent for a "permanent" U.S. military presence in Iraq is something that Bush must declare unconstitutional immediately. And no expecting "that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law" when it comes to Congress's prohibiting the administration from establishing permanent bases in Iraq or controlling Iraqi oil resources; establishing a congressional commission to review military contracts in Iraq; protecting contractor whistle-blowers; and putting a 45-day deadline on U.S. intelligence agencies to respond to information requests from Congress' committees on intelligence and armed services. Nope, then it's just "The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President."

In contrast, Art. I doesn't mention any oath. Art. VI says, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

The First Congress's version of this requirement was "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States." I greatly prefer it to the wordy remnant of Civil War suspicions that is used today: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

I guess that either the Columbia Spectator's opinion editors don't keep up with South Asian news, or they're deliberately trying to stir up controversy. An op-ed that makes nasty remarks about converting Dalits (better known in the West as "untouchables") and tribals to Christianity, and implicitly comparing it to invasions and inquisitions, is one way to do it.

- World War I: April 6, 1917 - November 11, 1918
- World War II: December 7, 1941 - December 31,1946
- Korean Conflict: June 27, 1950 - January 31,1955
- Vietnam War: February 28,1961 - May 7, 1975
- Persian Gulf War: August 2, 1990 - Present

Does anyone know if this is a standard list from the federal government about the dates for active duty?

Because contraception also was once among those morals crimes, I can see why the privacy reasoning of Griswold (contraception) seemed logical to extend to Roe (abortion), and has been extended to Lawrence (sodomy) as well. And this reasoning emphasizes a point that Paulsen and other abortion prohibitionists' rhetoric ignores: that abortion takes place in a woman's body. Instead, Paulsen says,

I am puzzled as to why some abortion prohibitionists reject accurate descriptions of fetal life, when such descriptions often are their best allies in reaching people's emotions. For a woman who is wavering on whether to have an abortion, an ultrasound that shows the fetus may cement her emotional attachment and cause her to decide to complete the pregnancy.**

This is portrayed well in the movie Juno, where a decidedly irreverent, irreligious, and seemingly insensitive teenager decides against abortion after getting to the clinic. The combination of information she receives from a classmate that the fetus already has fingernails, and the negative environment in the clinic (the simultaneously callous and over-informative receptionist, the drumming nails of the other people waiting) drive her to seek an adoption instead. I doubt a person like that would have her mind changed by obvious exaggerations regarding a fetus's ability to survive outside the womb. And if she believed them, she probably would have tried to have the baby extracted at her meeting with the adoptive parents, where she declares, "If I could just have the thing and give it to you now, I totally would, but I'm guessing it looks probably like a sea-monkey right now and we should let it get a little cuter."

The tactics that are actually useful for reducing the number of abortions, however, are inaccessible to Paulsen because he is so set on equating every woman considering an abortion with Hitler. As the conversion of Norma McCorvey -- the Roe of Rove v. Wade -- into an abortion prohibitionist (and Ron Paul supporter) demonstrates, an attitude of welcome is much more persuasive than condemnation. The title of the book announcing McCorvey's switch, Won by Love, essentially summarizes the story therein: she eventually felt exploited by the pro-choice movement, whereas the folks at Operation Rescue -- who moved their national headquarters next door to the clinic where she worked -- were friendly to her. If she has financial trouble, pro-life groups will call for donations.

In his post, Paulsen therefore fails both as a law professor and as an abortion-preventer. Perhaps these two aspects are incompatible: the legal argument must be in absolute terms for the heinous guilt of an aborting woman, while the social argument would have to recognize her humanity and claims to our sympathy even as it guides her to an alternative. In any case, I would recommend the post neither to convince a lawyer that abortion should be prohibited, nor to convince a woman not to have an abortion.

* Holocaust and genocide are weirdly inapt terms to use for the millions of fetuses killed through abortion, with their connotations of the killers' attempt to extinguish the existence of some group of Others. A women who kills the fetus she carries is almost by definition killing a fetus that if it were born, would be part of not only her general groups (race, nationality, etc.) but of her most intimate group, her family. If Paulsen is convinced that fetuses are people, the more appropriate analogy would be to the deaths that occurred in Communist China. This kind of genocide was motivated not by racial hatred, but more approximately by what those who do not conceive of pregnancy as significantly burdensome would call "convenience." It was inconvenient for Mao to feed all these people or to allow potential dissidents to live, so they died.

** I am very much in favor of ultrasounds being used for the purpose of fully informing pregnant women who are considering abortion. Someone who couldn't cope with the idea that she will be killing the blob on a screen has no business having an abortion. She'll probably repent of it once she finds out what a fetus looks like and join the abortion prohibition movement, on the belief that because she regrets her abortion, everyone must, and therefore she must save them from themselves. See Kennedy's majority opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart: "While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained. See Brief for Sandra Cano et al. as Amici Curiae in No. 05–380, pp. 22–24. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow."