I am so happy Alan Keyes is running for something. It's nice to have such a badass of bombast trolling around and claiming mononpoly on the basic principles of justice. I just listened to him on NPR go on and on about Obama having a "slaveholder's mentality" because of his pro-choice stance. He even chided the host for implying that slavery had some relation to race.

The host then gave Keyes a chance to expound on an issue of his choosing. The most important issue other than abortion: gay marriage. With the wars, the defecit, jihadist terrorism, nuclear proliferation, the retirement of the boomers and the exploding costs of health care and energy, it never ceases to amaze me that gay marriage is even on the agenda.

I do give Keyes credit for consistency. He thinks abortion is murder and is therefore unacceptable even in cases of rape and incest. Given the premise, such a conclusion is required. It is the premise that gives the pro-lifers all their moral force and it gripes me that some posit without extending their logic. Abortion, if it is murder, is indefensible in the case of rape or incest. Furthermore, all mothers and doctors should be convicted of first-degree murder if they initiate the procedure. Also, pregnant women should be charged with manslaughter for any negligence that results in the death of the fetus. The logic is inescapable.

Such arguments are often met by a retreat to the potential life position. This deflates the prolife case by leaps and bounds. Now, they are not protecting life, but potential life. It is very clear exactly what rights potential life is supposed to enjoy. The issue is then debatable, not absolute. Once it is debatable, the rationale of choice is wholly defensible.

I am quasi-pro choice. That is, I am uncomfortable with abortion but would never vote for my discomfort to be statutory law that bound others. I do, however, agree with many of the jurisprudential critiques of Roe and Casey. I am not convinced that choice is enshrined in the Constitution. I think it is a perfect example of a state-by-state issue, even though I would certainly vote against it.

My stance that it should be a political question also recognizes that it isn't. This is one reason why I can't understand how people like Keyes run primarily on the issue. There is not much a Senator or any elected official can actually do about abortion. They have three options. 1) They can create silly little laws that make abortion more inconvenient. 2) They can hope that a Supreme Court justice retires and that their newly constituted Court would actually take on abortion again (This was the Reagan strategy that ultimately met defeat with Casey) 3) They can pass a constitutional amendment.

A constitutional amendment makes much more sense in the case of abortion, which has been read into the federal constitution, than gay marriage, which heretofor has not been federally recognized and seems unlikely to be so even after Lawrence and under the 'full faith and credit" clause. Of course, you don't hear anything about the amendment because it brings with it the same logic I have already reviewed,