Oh? So it is irrational to contend that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the life of an unborn human being? Talk about the language (and logic) being turned inside out!
Nevertheless, under the Ginsburg worldview, the right to life of the unborn appears completely subordinated to the interest of women in having complete autonomy over their "reproductive decisions."
One has to scratch one's head to think of any other liberty that is so absolute that it permits no restrictions. We don't think that way regarding other liberties.
For example, would anyone seriously argue that my right to swing my fist entitles me to commit battery on another person? Does our right to sexual liberty entitle us to rape? Why do the radical pro-abortionists regard any restriction on abortion, which doesn't just harm another person, but kills him or her, an impermissible encroachment on a woman's liberty?
The only way it is logically possible to couch the abortion debate in terms of a woman's right to her own autonomy is if we accept the premise that the second party in the equation, the unborn, is not a party at all, but a meaningless mass of tissue bereft of human dignity. Sadly for the pro-aborts, it is increasingly clear from any perspective we choose to examine it: scientific, spiritual or otherwise, that the unborn is a human life. If the pro-aborts were not aware of the humanness of the unborn, they wouldn't grudgingly pretend to strive to make abortion "safe, legal and rare." There is no moral imperative to protect a human-less mass of tissue.
If anyone believes I am overstating Ginsburg's extremism, just remember the context. She writes in defense of that most abominable of procedures, "partial-birth abortion."
Can you conceivably wrap your arms around the perverted concept that a woman can't be a real woman unless she has the complete autonomy to direct a doctor to partially deliver her baby for the purpose of killing it? My purpose isn't to offend here, but, truly, I just don't get it.