The is the Libertarian Evictionist/Parasite argument. And Salon is right.
Right about what?
If whether or not a life can be terminated is decided by whoever has power and by whoever decides if it can live or not, think of the implications of that argument.
Infanticide is permissable.
Euthanasia of anyone deemed to be a problem or to not have a "quality of life" is permissable.
But, who decides that? The one with the power.
So, gaining power is the goal, not living by truth or a set of inalienable rights.
It is confusing to me how the same people who argue this line about abortion can then turn around and be for gay marriage on the basis of human rights. If rights are only conveyed by those who have power and are not inalienable, then why should the majority just eliminate every person that they find distasteful or that creates a burden on society. Yes, I admit that I am sliding down the slippery slope, but I cannot find philosophical distinctions that keep me from falling off that cliff.
Either life is valuable and worth saving or it only has value if those in power declare it to have value. In this case, the mother is the one who has power. But, what keeps it from stopping there? What if "power" and "usefulness" become the deciding factors?
55 million babies dead is horrible enough. I am just saying that the horror will only get worse instead of better if we keep going with this line of thinking.