Han wrote:

Now you are imposing your opinion as a law on someone else. Would you
like a law that says you, -MIKE-, have to pray in this church, on that
street corner? The woman's body is not something you have
jurisdiction over. I respect your right to have an opinion that may
say, for instance, "I do not think you have the right to terminate
that pregnancy of yours", but it has to be followed by "but I will
respect your right to do as you see fit". Then, of course you have
the right to end any relationship with the woman, unless she is your
responsibility as a minor. But even then, it is her body, and she
needs to live with the consequences.

There are heartfelt and rational arguments on both sides of the abortion
debate. After much thoughtful study, I've come down on the side of
unrestricted termination of pregnancy.

Why?

Unfettered abortions will reduce the number of liberals amongst us!

A "Progressive" woman who terminate her pregnancy is similar to her eating
the seed corn. This phenomenon actually has a name: It's called "The Roe
Effect." Here's how it works.

In 1982, it was estimated there were 72,000 abortions in Florida. If not for
the abortion, those fetuses would have been eligible to vote in 2000. Some
would have moved out of state, some would be dead, some would have been
incarcerated. A large percentage would not have bothered to go to the polls.

That still leaves many thousands who would go to the polls and mimic their
mom's inclinations.

George Bush won Florida, and hence the presidency, by 585 votes.