As a quick aside, I'll note his snide treatment of the actual questioneer is not particularly surprising; he does that with everyone who writes in, no matter what the topic. So it's not a special case, if you've never read his stuff before.
Frankly, I was surprised. Cecil, except for one article where he argued that packing cigarettes has no effect, has always been very dead-on and also very liberal with his arguments, but here he is, taking what I would say as a moderate (and some on this forum might say as extremely conservatve) viewpoint on the stance of abortion. I won't get into his main-body justifications (what's so special about brainwaves? what ISN'T?), but the main thing that interested me, and which I'd like to talk about after the initial skirmish over his actual article, is the meta-argument over politics and the abortion debate landscape.
He mentions snidely that the absolutist view on abortion rights is "one of the reasons we got stuck with eight years of George Bush", and that those arguments "drive the religious right to new heights of zeal". Further in the article, he says "The failure to find a middle ground on abortion has been a major contributor to the polarized politics that has plagued the country since Roe was handed down."
I do want to stress that he's not just picking on the far-left on the issue, but the far-right as well, and also that he's not saying either side is right or wrong, no matter how extreme, just that the divisiveness and the absolutism on either side has slaughtered rational politics in the US. Fresh off of an US election, I think it's all still on our minds.
Do you agree? Disagree? Does the pro-life/choice view either way justify destroying American politics to get done, or is there a better way to do this (like with compromises)?