That's a very interesting point. The ability to choose to abort a baby imposes a powerful selective pressure on that portion of our population that are inclined to practice it. They should eventually die out because of their failure to reproduce the same rate as those disinclined to abort.

Partial birth is a regulation on a particular means of performing abortion. It does not affect the choice to have an abortion for any reason. In the case of a woman choosing to terminate because "it is a girl" we need to argue that this choice has less merit than say, "because I can't be bothered."

I don't know if that would work or not. I think the '73 decision is incoherent from the constitutional perspective. But the fact remains that it is settled and survived challenges on the basis that there is a right to privacy. A legal challenge needs to persuade the court that no such right exists.

True. But this Supreme Court would be in an impossible logical position to overturn Roe vs. Wade based on some claim that choosing to "terminate because it's a girl" is somehow less a personal decision that because "I can't be bothered."

The Court decided that the fetus was viable after that time.

You misunderstand - I think abortion is wrong - it is murder! But not according to the laws we live by in the United States - don't you see the Irony?

Not like this one. This is a matter of choice. It has nothing to do with the viability of the fetus or the health of the mother. Choosing to "terminate because it is a girl" is a private decision that is protected by the constitution as determined in 1973 by the Supreme Court.

Choosing to terminate a pregnancy for any reason is a right. It is settled law and the supreme law of the land. Any act of congress restricting that option will be overturned and would not even be granted certeriori by the Supreme Court.

The problem with any theory that the Roosevelt administration secretly wanted war with Japan is the obvious fact that the United States was no superpower in 1941. The Germans occupied Europe, and Japan was a formidable and potent military adversary that posed an true existential threat to the United States. Roosevelt could not have credibly roled the dice on this because of the very significant risk of failure.

I don't think Prof. Williams has really gotten to the root of why western European philosophy should not appeal universally to the Arab culture. I think it has to do with the religion - Allah is not a god who is constrained by logic. Contrast that with Augustine and Aquinas who, at least try to reconcile god with nature and reason. That's the difference and it the difference that matters -- influences and shapes everything else among Muslim and especially the Arab culture.