I have never understood the logic of preserving trees (or air or whales or whatever) for future persons when those future persons are actually ‘non-persons’ in the logic of pro-Choice.
If the rights of people alive today pre-empt the unborn (who have no rights), then why not just enjoy ourselves and trash the planet?
The real problem here is were not comparing apples to apples. Abortion is truly an abhorent thing, and blatant murder. However, protecting the environment is a good thing, and in no way relates to the article or the actual issue of abortion. Is the intent to suggest that since we allow the murder of fetuses...we should allow the destruction of our much needed ecosystems? If thats the case the abortion issue is cheapened (because if we don’t take care of our environment; it WILL take care of us...permanently). Its not about the “tree huggers” trying to save the trees...or those damn commies trying to protect the wetlands, its about us. In the grand scheme of things the planet will be fine, we just won’t be able to survive on it any longer. Two wrongs don’t make a right, so lets start fixing what is wrong, and quit complaining and comparing them to the things that are right.
Oh yeah, and while the millions of abortions in the last fifty years are an abhorent abomination...making sure the country is still habital for the millions that were not aborted this year is still a nobel cause.