FOLLOW-UPS. As an addendum to Dana's terrific post below, people interested in this topic should definitely read Michael Berube's thoughts on the subject if they haven't already. I would also like to add that the possibility that women may choose to obtain abortions if their children will have severe disabilities (or for sex selection or whatever) is, as Dana suggests, likely to be a major rhetorical strategy for the anti-choice lobby.
TOURISTS WHO STOP TO READ MAPS ON SUBWAY STAIRS: LOCK 'EM UP! Rich Lowry argues in re: Giuliani's professed "hatred" of abortion that "Giuliani's 'hate' line rings so false because, temperamentally, he is not one to hate something without outlawing or attempting to discourage it." Roy has the correct response:
CONSENT AND CENSORSHIP. There has been a lot of interestingdiscussion of Garance's WSJ op-ed about raising the age of consent in the porn industry. I should say that I share Avedon and Roy's general libertarian perspective on the issue and probably end up in the same place as they do, but I think they're being a touch unfair to Garance's argument.
THE PROBLEM WITH ANTI-CHOICE ULTRASOUND POLICY. To follow-up on my recent post about William Saletan running interference for anti-choice ultrasound policies, Neilexplains in further detail why the moral inferences Saletan draws from ultrasounds don't actually follow, a persistent problem with his arguments on the subject.