In the tradition of legislating on abortion, a certain distinction was made out of prudence: On the one hand there may a young, unmarried woman, who finds herself pregnant, with the father of the child not standing with her. Abandoned by the man, and detached from her family, she may feel the burden of the crisis bearing on her alone, with the prospect of life-altering changes. On the other hand, there is the man trained in surgery, the professional who knows exactly what he is doing — he knows that he is destroying a human life, either by poisoning a child or dismembering it.
NRO "pro-life expert" Hadley Arkes, responding to Anna Quindlen's question (via Shakesville)
(emphasis mine - but I'm enough of an idiot that someone else had to point this out the gender division to me)
Women are not moral agents. (Also, apparently, not doctors).
The people that should be punished are those evil men who take away what rightfully belongs to other men.
Of course, I also love the fact that she is unmarried and childless. Which, while statistically likely, isn't always the case. She isn't always young, either. Or, at least, she's usually old enough to die for her country. Although, a lot of women getting abortions are at an age where people tend to not have health insurance, and thus many affordable options for birth control. Hmmmmmm.....