Bill Humphries, who somehow frames this in terms of Stalin's "useful idiots", points to what I found to be a pretty insightful article from the New York Times on the increasing tendency among young people to be against abortion. For some reason it's in the "Fashion and Style" section.
Experts offer a number of reasons why young people today seem to favor stricter abortion laws than their parents did at the same age. They include the decline in teenage pregnancy over the last 10 years, which has reduced the demand for abortion. They also cite society's greater acceptance of single parenthood; the spread of ultrasound technology, which has made the fetus seem more human; and the easing of the stigma once attached to giving up a child for adoption.
The most commonly cited reason for the increasingly conservative views of young people is their receptiveness to the way anti-abortion campaigners have reframed the national debate on the contentious topic, shifting the emphasis from a woman's rights to the rights of the fetus.
Britni Hoffbeck, another speech student at Red Wing High who opposes abortion, and who says her views are more conservative than those of her parents, put her argument succinctly: "It's more about the baby's rights than the woman's rights."
Some young people who oppose abortion, and who were born after the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 declared that were is a constitutional right to abortion, have adopted a new rhetoric. One of them is Kelly Kroll, a junior at Boston College and president of American Collegians for Life, who says she is a "survivor of the abortion holocaust" because she was adopted.
The article also cites some interesting statistics about teenage pregnancy rates and public opinion.
Update: From Technorati I ran across a great post about this article from David Mills at tourchstonemag.com. Unfortunately, his blog is all messed up regarding permalinks. So go here and it should probably be at the top.
So as I said, the first quarter of the article is cheering, because it says that young people are increasingly pro-life. The rest of the article is revealing, because it shows how our pro-choicers think and the extent to which they must deny the reality of any contradictory moral insight and treat people who disagree with them as having been manipulated or conditioned into believing what they believe.
Nice, that sounds like he's talking right to Bill 
The last three-quarters of the article try to explain this shift, in other words to explain it away. The article nowhere suggests that young people may be making a rational moral decision. It assumes the pro-life youth must believe what they believe for other reasons.
Anyway, go to the link and read the rest. Unfortunately, David doesn't have an RSS feed, so it's unlikely I'll read his site again. That makes me sad.
Via Mike's XLog, The Illinois Leader: U. S. History Made: Congress Moves to Protect Certain Aborted Babies.
That this is even an issue sickens me. Oh, it's a human life if it's out of the womb, but not one if its in the womb. If you snap a poor baby's neck through a "partial birth abortion" while it's still half in his mother it's ok, but once it hits fresh air it's wrong to kill it.
That anyone could kill their own baby angers me as much as any terrorist act. Even more so, in fact. Whereas terrorist acts are typically based on an (albeit sick and perverted) ideology, abortions are carried out because of laziness and total lack of respect for human life - even one's own child. In a way, you can almost respect terrorists, while abortion is just sick.
Wow. Very very graphic images: abortionismurder.org. It is murder.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Permalink
new⇒Court rejects death penalty for raping children - Yahoo! News
:)...
Keith: Jul 4, 11:32am