I'd been dying to know! Good thing he explained:
1. Anti-choice politicians are more trustworthy because they probably also like cutting taxes.
Part of my reasoning is politically pragmatic. Grover Norquist, the right-wing activist, once told my National Review colleague, David Freddoso, in an interview that anyone who can go to black-tie dinners and face the haranguing of rich donors for his pro-life stance has the backbone to support tax cuts too.
2. Because the government tells us which drugs it thinks we shouldn't put in our bodies, it can also tell women to keep fetuses in their bodies.
Every day, the government restricts what you can do with your body, from the drugs you can take to the surgeries you can subject yourself to. In other words, the line of personal autonomy is often blurry and narrow.
3. If you believe in the right to life for Jewish and black people who are able to live without the assistance of an umbilical cord, you must believe fetuses have a right to life, too!
Once a politician takes a stand that a certain population -- be they fetuses, Jews, blacks or anybody else -- has the right to life, their motive for changing their minds should be a lot better than fear of losing support from NARAL and the New York Times.
4. "Reasonable doubt" keeps us from sentencing people to death in a court of law (well, sometimes). And because Goldberg (who has never been and will never be pregnant) has some doubts as to when life begins, he's decided that no woman can figure it out, either.
In death penalty cases, "reasonable doubt" goes to the accused because unless we're certain, we must not risk an innocent's life. This logic goes out the window when it comes to abortion, unless you are 100% sure that babies only become human beings after the umbilical cord is cut.
I may not be 100% sure when life begins, either. But I am 100% sure that every pregnant woman has a right to make that assessment for herself.
Glad we cleared that up.