It's what we always hear. But let's be clear about what "such matters" entails. A woman has to decide whether the "thing" in her womb is to be regarded as a person. That it is a living "thing" of some sort, no one denies. The question is not whether it's alive. The question is whether it's a person.
What I want to know is what qualifies a woman, her family, and her doctor to make that determination? What special training, inspired insight, or infallible hunch do such people possess that empowers them to decide whether a living "thing" should be allowed to continue living or be scalded or hacked to death in the womb?
It is precisely the kind of smug nonsense the pro-choice side always parades out, to the nodding approval of "sophisticated" interviewers. This is evil of the worse kind, costumed in tolerance, freedom of choice, and pseudo-ethical superiority. But it is evil nonetheless, and no amount of euphemism or deference to a woman's right to choose can avoid the fact that "such matters" are almost always decided not on any scientific ground, but on the basis of mere convenience.
The god of convenience is the Moloch of our secular age. Abortion is an abomination to God, and they who support it, genuflecting at the altar of convenience, can expect to be opposed in their treachery by that Divine Judge Who commanded that the little children should be brought to Him.
So let's not get too excited about Mr. Brown just yet. Because if the bottom line for him is convenience, then we may as well have Teddy Kennedy continuing in that seat.
T. M. Moore