Heading the top of the list of reasons I can't vote for a Democrat is their position on abortion. I refer to myself as a platform voter, which means I focus on the specific policies of a political party and pay less attention to the personality traits of candidates.

But first we need to define terms. I am pro-life. The term is shorthand for the belief that it is wrong to take an innocent life without proper justification. Notice that this has nothing to do with whether the state can execute a criminal, who is provided due process and has been convicted of a capital crime. It also has nothing to with opposing the unfettered expansion of social programs because of budgetary concerns. Many pro-life advocates believe that life begins at conception. This means that the developing baby is not only human DNA, but inherently has the status of personhood.

Before diving too far into this I must acknowledge that most of the problems that exist with woman are related to the bad behaviors of men. Therefore, is it incumbent on men not to go around sowing their wild oats.

Think of the many euphemisms that surround pro-abortion advocacy, such as "Reproductive rights." The term seems to imply that there is some movement to limit women's ability to reproduce – a la the one-child policy that was once a staple of communist China. Ironically, one person famous for advocating forced sterilization was Margaret Sanger, founder of major abortion provider Planned Parenthood.

"My body, my choice." That might be a good argument against the idea of being forced to take a hastily developed immunization under the threat of losing your job, but every argument (and I mean every slogan) emphasizing women's autonomy, refuses to recognize the living existence of a distinct being in her womb.

A life is terminated willfully in an abortion. If an abortion is considered "medical care," then pregnancy must be an illness. And since life is terminated in an abortion, one would be hard-pressed not to label the euthanasia practices of Dr. Jack Kevorkian as "medical care" as well. If one were to argue that we don't know for sure when life begins, then that uncertainty itself would compel us to err on the side of caution considering the possible stakes.

You have women a decade into menopause angrily protesting that their right to abortion was taken away by the repeal of Roe v. Wade. Militant feminists have told me that male opinions regarding abortion are irrelevant because males lack reproductive capability. It would seem post-menopausal women wouldn't have the standing to protest for the same reason. Can one have a conviction regarding the evils of warfare only if they have had prior participation in armed combat?

Of course, if you believe that advocacy against abortion is really the effort of a patriarchal hegemony to keep women pregnant and in the kitchen, nothing is unreasonable. For such people, abortion is not merely a cultural issue, but a sacrament of veneration. The repeal of Roe v. Wade only put the issue of abortion back into the hands of state legislatures, where it was prior to 1973 and where it should have always stayed. Roe v. Wade was perhaps one of the most tenuously adjudicated decisions of our times, melded from a hodgepodge of legal principles from other cases.

Democrats argue they are for women's rights. Apparently, the advocacy of abortion is part of that. But then they turn around and support biological males identifying as women participating in female sporting events. Think of the repercussions of this. It cheats some girls and women out of their rightful recognition for their achievements. Not really very woman-friendly.

Thirty years ago, I considered myself pro-choice. My reasoning at the time was that though I was personally against abortion, I couldn't impose my beliefs on anyone else. A story I heard about Abraham Lincoln made me realize the bankruptcy of my position. The story centered around the 1860 presidential debates between Lincoln and Steven Douglas. When the issue came to slavery, Douglas argued that he wasn't calling slavery right or wrong – that he wasn't for it or against it or– but felt each state had to make that decision (i.e., essentially pro-choice). When Lincoln rebutted him, he said something very profound. To paraphrase him in modern language, Lincoln suggested that the virtue inherent in any choice depends entirely upon what is being chosen. If African-Americans were humans and not beasts of burden, then the choice to enslave them can only be a monstrous evil and never a virtue. Likewise, if the developing baby is a human person, rather than a clump of cells, having the choice to terminate it can only be an evil. If women are not allowed to see an ultrasound before making a decision to abort, what can possibly the intent if not to deceive or conceal the truth.

I personally like the idea of autonomy, but it must be balanced by internal restrains. Our second president, John Adams, made this observation in a speech.

"Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Gallantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

What was his point? The Constitution can only work effectively for a people who voluntarily exercise internal restraints. We have personal autonomy from an over-reaching government, but not from a fixed moral standard. What I find interesting is that although the Democratic Party is associated with the label "pro-choice," they aren't for personal autonomy on many issues outside of abortion and sexual politics. They are against vouchers for educational choice,they keep pressing for more sanctions against self-defense, they seem willing to circumvent parental consent, and they demonize people reluctant to get an immunization, even though they should have theoretically been protected by their own immunizations and protective measures.

Many politicians are going to make exceptions for extenuating circumstances as a way of being compassionate or showing they are reasonable. But one must eventually consider that if they believe developing babies are persons, do the babies magically become less a human person because of the circumstances under which conception occurs? And what about the 97% of pregnancies that are "normal"? Do you make policies where the tail is wagging the dog? Have most of them not voluntarily resulted from a choice to participate in activities that produce children? The libertarian streak inside me says if you don't wish to have children, then don't conceive them in the first place.