Liberals might fall anywhere in the social-action marketplace along the spectrum of have-it, keep-it, give-it, pro-choice, pro-abortion (well-observed, Helen). And the view of a particular liberal might change with circumstances; each person’s story and experience is unique and valuable. Liberals want people to have a free hand in the social action marketplace, and typically are befuddled at the notion they are imposing their values on others for the simple reason that they aren’t forcing anyone, in this case, to do an abortion.

If a person were to force a woman, or some class of women to have an abortion, then they aren’t liberal at all-they are illiberal. Illiberals want to regulate the social-action marketplace, along the lines suggested by Whitehall in the energy conservation example. Liberals support freedom in the social-action marketplace in the same sort of way that conservatives oppose regulation in the economic marketplace.

The core problem is Roe v Wade. Reverse that and any implication that this power is federal, and states will come up with legislation that reflects the state’s population’s view of the matter. California and New York will be most free of restrictions while Alabama and Mississippi might be extremely stringent.

More broadly, leftists do impose their values on others as a matter of course. Consider conservation of energy. They wanted remote control thermostats in California, allowing the state to set the temperature of your family room. You will be forbidden to buy incandenscent lightbulbs shortly no matter your lighting preference or needs. The list goes on and on.

A pro-life person would say that its not just her body a woman must take into account but also the life of the unborn. The leftist makes an arbitrary decisions that the life of the unborn is of no account.

Most pro-life people would gladly pay whatever it would take to care for children if the choice was between paying and killing them. The only difference would be that those on the right would see that the money actually accomplished providing care and did not instead focus on reelecting leftist. Most social welfare programs today have the opposite effect than they intend and they often actively hurt the individuals and communities they purport to help. Yet leftist cling to them with a death grip because they would rather hurt the poor and vulnerable than lose power or admit error.

Not the America I want to live in … can we make a new one please?

Sorry for the OT comment.

Unfortunately it does not make things better, because Ms. Doniger seems to have become completely unhinged. Consider the following line:

“Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman.”

Available scientific evidence is that being a woman is a biological fact, not a belief, about which one could be accused of hypocrisy.

I find it amusing that M. Doniger’s chair is named for Mircea Eliade, who was a prof at the UofC Divinity School (corporate motto: “God, the fascist bastard, is dead”) when I was an undergrad, back in a previous millennium. What they never told us back then, was, that before he fled his native Romania when the Communists took over, Eliade was an enthusiastic and vocal supporter of the Iron Guard, an overtly fascist and anti-Semetic party.

I once attended a lecture Eliade gave at Hillel (the campus Jewish organization), of all places. Between the thickness of his accent and the stark incomprehensibility of his ideas, I could not understand a word of it. I attended two lectures by Richard McKeon but I fell asleep both times.

BTW: has anybody noticed what is happening at Intrade?