This week marked the 24th anniversary of the Roe V. Wade decision - the decision that legalized abortion in this country.

In timely fashion, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott this week said legislation to ban late-term abortions would be introduced in the Senate.

Similar legislation passed both houses of Congress last year and was vetoed by President Clinton.

There is one certainty where the abortion debate is concerned. It won't go away.

It's interesting to me to listen to the arguments of those who favor abortion on demand and then apply those same arguments to other issues.

It's fun to see how they stack up.

The first argument is the "a woman should be able to do whatever she pleases with her own body" argument.

On the surface this sounds reasonable. Who would want the government telling them what to do or not to do with their own body.

And let's assume for a moment, albeit incorrectly, that the other body involved - the fetus - doesn't count.

I always ask the folks who make that "own body" argument - many times they are women - what they think about prostitution.

Of course they - many times a bit feminist and often a bit liberal - tell me it is demeaning and exploitive to women.

But, I ask, shouldn't prostitutes be allowed to do whatever they want with their own bodies? Why is there no movement to make prostitution "safe, legal and rare" in this country. What's wrong with a little sex for cash between consenting adults?

The answer is obvious. Prostitution is demeaning and exploitive.

But how in the world could one argue simultaneously against prostitution and for abortion?

If prostitution is demeaning, what is abortion? Dignified?

The other argument I hear is "I should be able to do whatever I want as long as I don't harm anyone else or infringe upon the rights of others."

Again we must make a quantum leap in flawed judgment and assume that the "anyone else" in that argument doesn't include the unborn.

So I ask the folks that make the "harm anyone else" argument to rationalize abortion about my right to own a gun. Most times they are dead set against that right.

Guns hurt people, they argue, and should be outlawed. They overlook the fact that me and the vast majority of other law abiding gun owners harm no one. Nor do we infringe upon the rights of anyone.

So watch closely as the latest round of abortion debate rages on. Listen to the arguments carefully.

Isn't it interesting that the caring, compassionate, enlightened, politically correct left finds in its ranks the highest number of those who support abortion?

I think the truly enlightened are those who understand the sanctity of innocent human life.

I hope a hundred years from now, when people look back on the turn of the century, they ask, "Can you believe those people in the late 1900s. They killed their unborn children." ***** This is unrelated, but it is so bizarre I just had to share it with our readers.

Hillary Clinton, being interviewed for a show to air on C-SPAN, said that right-wing news outlets prevent Americans from getting balanced coverage of the issues.

And I quote: "I mean, you've got a conservative and/or right wing press presence with really nothing on the other end of the political spectrum."

And: "There's no balance there. It's difficult to get a well-argued presentation of issues that is really reflective of different points of view in the media today."

I am not making this up. The story moved on the Associated Press national wire.

She did not specify which broadcasters or publications she had in mind, but I wonder which news outlet she thinks is so right wing? CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, CNN?

I'll bet Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings felt insulted after reading that little AP nugget. [[In-content Ad]]