ABSTRACT
Time passes, but abortion remains a debate between irreconcilable absolutes. The issue is treated as life versus choice, forced pregnancy advocates versus baby killers. The point of restricting "the right to choose" is not to spitefully penalize those who do not accept traditional Judeo-Christian ethics, or any other moral code, but to ensure that everyone accepts responsibility for the serious consequences—a life—of their sexual choices. Today people are free to choose whether—and when and with whom—to have sex. People who create children as a result, even inadvertently, should be willing to accept responsibility for the consequences of their decisions. Unrestricted abortion, in contrast, allows everyone, men as well as women, to avoid dealing with the results of choices freely made. Even if they continue to oppose legal restrictions on abortion, "pro-choice" activists should recognize that abortion has become a convenient panacea for a world that would prefer not to confront a profoundly moral issue.
