Despite the propaganda in the article, the woman was right the first time to think that “‘Abortion’, to me, meant ‘going back’ to the condition of not being pregnant”, which was none of anyone else's business. She didn't have to be a philosopher. As the article acknowledged "her actual involvement in the case was minimal". The case was brought to the Supreme Court and won there to establish a principle defending the rights of all. It doesn't make any difference to that that her own life had otherwise been a basket case in many respects or that she subsequently converted to a religious nut running around with "murdering babies" rhetoric.

This is interesting on a personal level, of course. People are complicated, even simple people. It is one aspect of being human that democrats and egalitarians blank out on. Maybe we all deserve the same rights in court, and in that sense, we are politically "equal." But we are not equivalent or interchangeable.

Allow me to parody -- "Why, after working hard for two years to earn a community college degree in fire safety did he suddenly switch to fashion photography? The change is all the more puzzling in light of statements from his friend, Sean, who said: "When Janie said that she wanted to be a model, he broke up with her, saying that fashion models were the dregs of consumerist society." ... Why after years raising AKC malemutes, did she suddenly claim to be a cat fancier? ... Why, after years working as pediatricians did they suddenly go into business brewing beer (no kidding; see here: http://www.savetheworldbrewing.com/ab... ")

She had a hard life. Who has not, granted that some are harder than others. "Sons of the sinner / Sons of the saint / Who is the child with no complaint?" - Jacques Brel