Inexcusable Foreshadowed

[busker]

As this thread amply demonstrates, we at least now have the opportunity to debate the issue in an adult manner and on a moral as well as practical basis.  Whether or not any of us take advantage of that opportunity instead of name-calling, over-generalizations, straw men and bumper sticker slogans.

Somewhere up there, someone alluded to errors committed for the sake of convenience.  The great and foundational such error was trying to settle the issue by pronunciamento in the same way Justice Taney did with slavery in Dred Scott v Sandford, thus avoiding messy politics and contrary opinions regarded as unsophisticated or biased.  Another, seldom discussed, is the convenience of  limiting consideration to "a woman's sole choice," "our bodies ourselves," etc., because it is inconvenient and messy to acknowledge the man's very real interest in his unborn child's future.  Denying that interest is a big part of today's moral and ethical infantilization; it is the Original Cancellation.

In an ideal world, amongst intelligent counterparties, there would be dialogue and debate followed by agreement on a mutually acceptable conclusion.
In the real world, it is a "debate" between intelligent liberals on the one hand, and either the old-and-too-far-out-of-date-but-holding-steadfastly-to-incorrect-viewpoints-and-not-that-intelligent-anyway, or honest sons of the soil who believe Jesus was born of a virgin (the mistranslation of the Hebrew into the Greek now widely known except in their benighted part of the world).
Rather than waste time on a meaningless debate with an adversary not fit to judge, it is a better course of action to let the first lot die out, and render the second powerless through the selective activism of an enlightened judiciary.
It is for the greater good.