Recently the MSM and liberal blogs have characterized Palin as an extremist with regard to abortion; because she opposes abortion even in the case of rape of incest. I beg to differ and believe that the pro choice folks by buying into this argument are unwittingly helping the anti-choice folks in their crusade.
Like Sen. Obama, I believe that determining exactly when life begins is above my pay grade. St Augustine thought it was at 3 months I understand within the Jewish tradition it is at 18 days. Thus there is considerable uncertainty even among learned scholars. But even if we can't all agree on a single point when life exists, there is none the less a point for each of us at which we believe life exists. At that point that we should value human life in its own right irrespective of the manner of its conception.
Consider the following thought experiment. If we are willing to make an exception in the case of rape or incest prior to the life emerging from the womb what prevents us from making the same exception after it emerges i.e. it is o.k to kill a child at any time if it was conceived as a result of rape or incest. Clearly nobody would support such an exception because after birth the child is so clearly "human" deserving of all rights. Now wind the clock back two weeks. I think most if not all people would agree that aborting a fetus at that point would be wrong would it be alright do so if the conception was the result of rape or incest? If not at this point what about several months earlier? At what point does it become alright to make that distinction and why? And if you do make that distinction at some point but not at a later point then the only basis is because the fetus conceived as a result of rape or incest has "earned its rights". Since when did any human life have to "earn" its rights.
It is clear to me that true extremists in the abortion debate are not those like Palin would oppose abortion in all circumstances and at any point or those who would support a woman's right to choose according to the dictates of her own conscience up until the point of viability; but rather those who would seek to outlaw abortion except in the case of rape or incest. The proponents of this supposedly "moderate" position know that there is no majority for an outright ban without the exception and in their zeal are prepared to sacrifice one vulnerable group and establish a terrible precedent-the government gets to decide which life is worth protecting or not.
Those of us who support choice need to make it absolutely clear that the choice is between Roe Vs Wade or an outright ban under all conditions except if it involves serious risk to the mothers health or life. Such a health exception doesn't create any moral or legal problems since we have already accepted the notion of self defense within our jurisprudence. We have to stop calling those who would make an exception "moderates" and label for what they are extremists with no guiding moral principle.