Oh, I don’t have a problem with the ruling in the context of states’ rights, and/or giving the people of the state the choice to make the laws they want in their state. I’m all for that.
My point was reaffirming what David.Lewis was pointing out. The result of the ruling now gives states the choice for one more government (albeit at the state level) mandate: that one must give birth if pregnant. The fallout from this is pretty clear: we’re going to have a whole bunch of unwanted kids in this country… many, many more than we have now. The religious right arguing against abortion don’t actually care after the baby is born, they just want it born.
The reasons for this date back very far, as you noted, but let’s not act like it’s for all the right reasons. The Catholic Church, and other religious businesses, know that it’s much easier to indoctrinate into the church than it is to recruit new customers. “Get ‘em while they’re young,” might as well be the motto of the Catholic Church in theory and practice. There is a reason why religious oriented adoption centers ensure that the adopting families practice the same faith: because one day that kid will grow up to also contribute 10% of his paycheck to the church.
So, getting back to David’s point, this isn’t about the innocence of children. This isn’t about the sanctity of life. As he put it, “This is about exploiting the very real innocence of children for evil political purposes.” And that’s exactly right. We now either deal with the fallout from all these extra unwanted assholes that’ll be running around in 18 years, OR we ask the state to fund them and take care of them. And we all know exactly how this will work in the end…