SteynOnline

Re the Bork/Potemra/McCarthy discussion on abortion, I agree in principle with Judge Bork's position in favor of allowing legislatures to decide, but in practice I agree with Mike that this would have had consequences for the vigor of the pro-life movement. As to other countries, Britain and Europe are far more advanced in their post-Christian condition, and abortion isn't an issue. Very few social conservative issues are issues, in the sense of being able to motor a robust and well-funded lobby able to keep the pressure on squishy legislators.

At the risk of over-generalizing, in the U.S., big changes are permanently embedded coast to coast by judges claiming to have discovered a hitherto unknown constitutional right to them lurking in the emanations of the penumbra. In countries less fond of judge-made law, everything's much more incremental and utilitarian: In the Sixties in Britain, there was no epic constitutional principle or human right attached to the abortion debate; even the churches didn't have much to say about it. It was just a bit of legislative housekeeping: a utilitarian approach to a political problem.

There are consequences to these different routes to the same destination: By attaching abortion to a constitutional principle, the "pro-choice" crowd have found themselves publicly embracing an abortion absolutism that's largely unknown to the debate overseas. The "principle" of Roe v. Wade obliges them to defend partial-birth infanticide, etc.

Conversely, if someone constructs a great principle as the justification for social change — "a woman's right to choose" — it's very easy to respond with a great principle of your own — the "right to life." For the pro-life movement in Britain and Europe, by contrast, it's hard to argue a great principle in the absence of any on the other side: "right to life" works well against the "right to choose"; it's less effective when the other chaps are mumbling, "Yes, well, there we are. Difficult question, did the best we could, tried to take account of all points of view, all in the past now, no point raking everything up again."
National Review's The Corner, June 23rd 2009